PRAKASH CHANDRA Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions raise common points and therefore, were heard together and being decided together by this order.

(2.) The petitioners in all these petitions were appointed to the posts in Class IV service of the Government of Rajasthan. They had applied in response to an advertisement. They were called for an interview and after interview, were appointed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 775-1025. The appointments were for a fixed period which was extended from time to time. In the months of March, April and May 1994, orders terminating the services of the petitioners were issued by the respondents. No specific reasons were stated in the order of termination but only orders of the Director of Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner were quoted as the basis for passing the order. The petitioners contend that the termination of the services of the petitioners is extremely arbitrary and discriminatory. According to them, the petitioners were fully eligible for the appointment to the posts and were appointed after following the process of recruitment prescribed by the Rules. The petitioners further contended that though their appointment orders were for a fixed period, but as they were appointed after due selection, they held substantive posts. It was also contended that the principles of natural justice required a hearing to the petitioners before their appointments were held to be illegal. It was further contended that in some of the Districts of the State, such appointments were continued which would clearly show that the petitioners were discriminated against. The petitioners also contended that even assuming that while making appointments, the Rules were not strictly followed even then, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer as they were not at fault. When the petitioners were eligible and the essential provisions of the Rules were followed some minor discrepancies in the procedure followed for the purpose of selection cannot render the appointments invalid.

(3.) In reply, the respondent's contention was that the appointments were made against the Rules and therefore were not legal and valid. It was also contended that the appointments were made ignoring the total ban on appointments imposed by the State Government. The State Government's Circular making it compulsory to make recruitment through Employment Exchanges alone was stated to be flouted. It was further contended that certain complaints were made by the various organisations like National Students Union of India, Rajasthan Rajya Karmchari Mahasangh and the District Employment Office complaining about illegalities and irregularities in the process of the appointments. It was contended that the appointments were for a specific term and therefore, they could not be taken as substantive appointments and could be terminated without any notice or hearing by the respondents.