STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 31.7.95 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent -petitioners, set -aside the orders of termination of their services and directed the appellants to allow the respondents to continue in service as they were appointed after due selection under the Rules.

(2.) THE respondents' (petitioners in the writ petitions) case as set -up in the writ petitions, is that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 5.7.93 issued by the District Education Officer, Rajasamand, they applied for the post of Lab. Boys/Class IV Servant in various schools in Rajsamand District. They were called for interview. The interviews were held on 9.9.93 . They were selected and were given appointments as Lab. Boys in the pay scale of Rs. 775 -1025/ - by the appointment orders issued on 10.9.93, 11.9.93, 13.9.93, 14.10.93, 21.11.93 and 26.11.93. They were appointed on temporary basis for a fixed term, i.e., upto 31.3.94, which was extended upto 30.4.94. No order for extending the services of the respondents was thereafter issued and they were relieved from service on 30.4.94 and in some cases thereafter but before 14.5.94. The respondent -petitioners challenged the orders of termination of their services in the writ petitions.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Rules 14, 15 and 16 of the Rules, 1963 have not been complied with. Rule 14 requires that the applications for direct recruitment to the posts in the service shall be invited by advertising the vacancies to be filled -in while in the present case the vacancies were not properly advertised and the appointing authority only placed the advertisement on the Notice Board of his office. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that while making appointments, the appointing authority, as per the Rules, was required to call for the names of the eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange which was not done. It has further been submitted that the appointments were made during the period when there was a complete ban on appointments to be made. His further submission is that the learned Single Judge, also, did not take into account the fact that certain complaints were made by various organisations like National Students Union of India, Rajasthan Rajya Karamchari Mahasangh and the District Employment Officer regarding the irregularities and illegalities committed by the District Education Officer in the process of appointments. An enquiry was held, in which the complaints were found correct and, therefore, the whole appointments made by this process were cancelled.