SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE appellant is the original petitioner. He is a handicapped person studied upto B. Sc. and B. Ed. and is fully qualified for the post of Teacher Grade II (Maths ). After undergoing due process of selection as provided under the law, he was duly appointed on the post of Teacher Grade II (Maths.) by order dated 27. 2. 99. Accordingly, he joined his duties on 8. 3. 99. He was relieved from his duty during summer vacation by order dated 15. 5. 99. But by an order dated 27. 6. 99, once again he was ordered to join duties upto 14. 7. 99.
(2.) ONE Shaukat Ali filed a writ petition No. 1705/99 before this Court showing the present petitioner as respondent No. 3 making grievance that his candidature was wrongly ignored and Gajraj Singh having lesser merit was appointed on the ground that required certificate was not in the prescribed form. The said petition came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 19. 5. 99. Looking to the facts and circumstances of that case and urgency involved in the matter, Mr. M. R. Singhvi was directed to appear for respondents State of Rajasthan and Deputy Director and on that very day i. e. on 19. 5. 99, the matter was disposed of. That writ petition was disposed of finally with a direction to the Deputy Director to consider and decide the representation of petitioner Shaukat Ali. While disposing of the writ petition it was also observed that "in case respondent No. 3 (Gajraj Singh) is to be disturbed, the respondent No. 2 (Deputy Director) will pass appropriate order after hearing respondent No. 3 (Gajraj Singh ). " In pursuance of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 1705/99 filed by Shaukat Ali, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 23. 7. 99 (Annex. 6) to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated. The present petitioner Gajraj Singh submitted reply dated 2. 8. 99 (Annex. 7), but without considering the same, once again he was served with another notice dated 20. 10. 99 (Annex. 9) calling upon him to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated. Once again, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 2. 11. 99 (Annex. 10 ). However, the respondents passed order dated 11. 4. 2000 (Annex. 11) terminating the services of the petitioner and relieved him from his duty by order dated 17. 4. 2000 (Annx. 12 ). The same was challenged by the appellant-petitioner before the learned Single Judge by way of writ petition No. 1618/2000. The same came up before the learned Single Judge on 24. 5. 2000 which was dismissed in limine on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable as the respondents passed the impugned order in pursuance of his order dated 19. 5. 99 and also on the ground that newly appointed respondent Shri Shaukat Ali was not a party before him in the writ petition. Hence this special appeal. Notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents and all of them are served. But no-one thought it fit to appear either in person or through their counsel. Therefore, the matter was heard and decided with the assistant of Mr. Nikub, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge was wrong in holding that the writ petition was not maintainable. It is true that the impugned order (Annex. 11) was passed by the respondents in view of his Lordships order dt. 19. 5. 99 passed in writ petition No. 1705/99. But that order was passed behind the back of the petitioner. The second ground for rejection of the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner was that the newly appointed respondent Shri Shaukat Ali was not joined as party-res-pondent by the petitioner in his petition. With utmost respect to our learned brother, though present petitioner was joined as respondent No. 3, he proceeded to decide the writ petition in favour of Shri Shaukat Ali without even issuing notice to the present petitioner, then on this ground, he could not have dismissed the writ petition. In any case, the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of Shaukat Ali. What was challenged by the present appellant-petitioner was his termination and not the appointment of Shaukat Ali. Hence, both the grounds assigned by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition filed by the present petitioner were wholly unsustainable.
(3.) COMING to the merits of the writ petition, we are fully convinced that the respondents-Authorities have totally misread the earlier judgment and order dated 19. 5. 99 passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of Shaukat Ali. By way of passing observations, the learned Single Judge has observed in his order that in case respondent No. 3 is to be disturbed, the respondent No. 2 will pass appropriate order after hearing respondent No. 3. ' The learned Single Judge never directed respondents to disturb the present petitioner. From the impugned notice and the order (Annex. 11) it is clear that they took it as if there was direction from the learned Single Judge to disturb the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order (Annex. 11) has to be quashed. Apart from this, there is one more strong ground in favour of the appellant-petitioner that his selection/appointment was totally in accordance with law. Merely because another person was wrongfully denied his appointment, that would not be a ground to disturb the services of a person, who has been otherwise lawfully appointed on the post. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of termination (Annex. 11) is required to be quashed and set aside. At this stage, Mr. Nikub states that on one post, two persons cannot be kept. Therefore, either the appellant can be appointed on the post or Shaukat Ali. He further submits that if they dis-continue the services of Shaukat Ali, then also they may face the music of contempt of Court's order passed by the learned Single Judge and if they do not appoint the present petitioner, then also they may face the music of contempt. However, in our considered opinion for creating such situation, they have to blame themselves because without properly understanding the order of the learned Single Judge, in over-enthusiastic manner, they issued notice of termination against the present petitioner and terminated his services. ;