SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five writ petitions involve a common question and therefore, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. By these writ petitions the five petitioners have challenged the order of the State Government in the Finance (Excise) Department dated 15. 7. 83 by which 16 persons have been declared surplus on account of the fact they by another order of the same date the State Government had abolished 17 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors of the Excise Department with effect from 10. 8. 83.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners bereft of all embellishment and unnecessary details is that the petitioners who are included in the 16 persons who have been declared surplus could not have been so declared unless an attempt had been made to absorb them in the Excise Department itself. In order to understand this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners a few facts relevant for the aforesaid purpose may be stated here. THE petitioners are all law graduates and were duly selected by the selection board. Under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Recruitment & other service conditions) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1960) and they were posted as Prosecuting Inspector (excise) by order dated 25. 11. 72. THEy had also undergone the training prescribed for Excise Inspectors by the order of the Excise Commissioner dated 29. 11. 72. THEy also further underwent another training vide order dated 4. 12. 72 and they also cleared the departmental examination for Excise Inspectors.

(3.) THE State Government has opposed the writ petition and has tried to support the order Annx. 33 Mr. Maheshwari appearing for the State has strenuously urged that in the first place the petitioners do not continue to be in the Excise Department and, therefore, the question of their being absorbed in that department does not arise. In the second place he also tried to urge that the orders and instructions issued by the Government on 20. 5. 78 and earlier are only departmental instructions and the petitioners cannot claim any right under them.