- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
(3.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court made on November 4, 1992 in S.A. No. 175 of 1992. The learned Judge dismissed the second appeal on the ground of limitation. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, instead of remanding the matter, we think that it can be disposed of on merits. The respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis as a teacher on September 30, 1970. The Screening Committee constituted to regularise the services of the ad hoc teachers found that the respondent was not fit to be confirmed. On the basis thereof, the order of termination came to be made on May 8, 1974. It was challenged in the suit, Ultimately, when it was decreed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, the High Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground of limitation. The District Judge relied upon Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 to hold that prior notice required by Rule 23-A was not given to terminate the service. So the order is bad in law. Rule 6(b) (3) of the Rules provides thus: "Rule 6(b) (3) - that a person holding any of the following grade I post-in sections B, C, D, E and F or any of the posts in Section "A" of the scheduled on 31-12-72 in an ad hoc/officiating / temporary capacity and who had continuously hold the said post or would have held any of these posts out of his deputation elsewhere, for a period not less than six months on 15-12-1971 and was working as such on the date of publication of these (amendment) Rules shall be screened by a Committee referred to in Rule 25, for adjudging his suitability for such post, provided he possesses the qualifications prescribed in the rules either for direct recruitment or for promotion or the prescribed qualification of the posts on the basis of which he was appointed in the ad hoc or officiating or temporary capacity on such post." ;