- (1.) HON'ble R. S. Verma, J These six writ petitions have been heard together by consent of all concerned. Since a very short point is involved in them they are being disposed of at the admission stage itself Since the questions of facts and law involved in each one of them are identical, I am disposing them by a common order.
(2.) REPLY to show cause notice was filed in Ishwar Singh vs. State S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1209/91 Replies in other cases have not been filed. REPLY filed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1209/1991 has been adopted by the learned Government Advocate in all the cases and learned counsel for petitioners in all these writ petitions agree that reply filed in Ishwar Singh's case may be taken as reply in the other writ petitions too. Hence, the reply in Ishwar Singh's case has been taken as representative reply to all the writ petitions. For this very reason, I need not state the pleas raised in all the writ petitions, and a brief delineation of the averments of the petitioners in SB Civil Writ Peti-tion No. 1209/1991 may be taken as representative pleadings in all other cases. The case of the petitioners is that the District Establishment Committee Jalore, hereinafter the D. E. C. , issued advertisement for filling up vacancies of teachers Grade III, existing in the Upper Primary Schools under its jurisdiction. The petitioners, who were eligible to be appointed and possessed requisite qualifications, duly applied and were selected an interview held between 13. 2. 1991 and 21. 2. 1991. The Collector of Jalore, who is an ex-officio member of the D. E. C. was duly invited to attend the interview, but he could not participate in the selections The Collector, Jalore was not happy with these selections and he issued a letter restraining Zila Parishad Jalore from issuing appointment letters to the selected candidates. Zila Parishad Jalore after obtaining legal advice ignored the aforesaid letter of the Collector and proceeded to make appointments to the posts of 3rd grade teachers under the various schools under its jurisdiction. Various appointment letters were issued by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jalore to the selected candidates on 5. 3. 1991. Annexure 1 and 2 are some of the appointment letters so issued by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jalore. The case of the petitioners is that they joined duties in pursuance of such appointment letters but subsequently under direction of the Collector, the services of various appointees were terminated and they were relieved of their respective charges. Annexures 6, 7 and 8 were some such directions. Annexure 5 is the letter by which services of one of the petitioners were terminated. The case of the petitioners is that termination of their services in an arbitrary manner without notice to them, was bad in law and such termination may be quashed and petitioners be allowed to continue in service. The case of the contesting respondents is that the D. E. C. committed grave and serious illegalities and irregularities in making the impugned selections. The Collector brought the various irregularities and illegalities to the notice of the State Government and thereupon the Government stayed the appointments made in pursuance of such selections. Yet, the Zila Parishad proceeded to make impugned appointments. It was in these circumstances that the appointments were stayed and the incumbents were ordered to be relieved. It is pleaded that the Collector and the State Government acted within' their powers in the matter. It is alleged that the entire selection was malafide and suffered from nepotism and favouritism. Various contentions have been raised in this regard. It has been alleged that due to illegalities and irregularities committed during the selection, meritorious and deserving candidates had been left out and favoured candidates were given undue advantage. It was interalia pleaded. It seems that the petitioners are in league (sic) with the respondent No. 2 and its functionaries, maneuvered farce show of interview". Hence they were not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was an equitable remedy. With regard to the various irregularities and illegalities, it was pointed out that the Collector, Jalore or his nominee could not attend the interview and the Collector sought postponement of the interviews. But the D. E. C. proceeded to hold interviews and this has affected the selection process. It was alleged that interview letters issued by the D. E. C. were not entered in the despatch register and hence it could not be said if all the applicants had been called for interview or not. The advertisement and the call letters issued for interview specified that interviews were to be held for the purposes of verification of the documents filed by the candidates. 40 marks were allotted for such an interview, which was a futile exercise. Prior to interview, a computerized merit list was prepared, yet persons standing at Nos. 3, 6, 7, 9 to 16 were ignored and candidates as low as at Nos. 668, 673, 696 and 699 were selected and this shows that the interview was a farce.
(3.) THE other allegation is that the Chief Executive Officer Shri Navrang Rai belonged to Jhunjhunu. THE appointment letter Annex. R/l dated 5. 3. 1991 shows that out of total 70 candidates,as many as 35 belonged to Jhunjhunu and 10 belonged to the adjoining district Sikar, which fact speaks for itself Like wise out of 53 applications received for Physical Training Instructors, (P. T. I.), 42 belonged to Jhunjhunu. Out of total 27 selected lady candidates, more than 50% belonged to Jhunjhunu. It was alleged that the advertisement issued by the D. E. C. did not specify that posts of crafts teachers and physical training instructors were to be filled, yet appointment were made to such posts. Reliance was placed upon Annex. R/2 and Annex. R/3 in this regard. It was further pointed out that though selections were made on 23. 2. 91, yet the appointment letters were prepared on 22. 2. 1991. Reliance is placed upon Ex. R/4 in this regard. It was alleged that in fact on 22. 3. 91, Shri Navrang Rai was out of station and could not have signed Ex. R. 4 on the said date. Reliance has been placed on the log book dated 22. 2. 91 Ex. R/5. It was also pleaded that in all 1149 applicants are said to have been interviewed between 12. 2. 1991 and 21. 2. 91 and such a task was beyond human efforts. THE suggestion appears to be that so many candidates could not have been interviewed within such short period. Another allegation is that marks for scouting, social service and games had already been allotted while preparing the merit list but during interview such makes were again awarded and thus deserving candidates were excluded. It was further alleged that in cases of certain candidates, degrees/certificates were accepted without obtaining any confirmation from the Director of Education. It is further alleged that without exhausting the merit list, appointments were given from the waiting list. It was pointed out that there was a ban on recruitment of craft teachers, yet the D. E. C. ignored the ban. It was pleaded that in view of all these facts, the Government was entitled to act u/s 85 of the Raj-asthan Panchayat Samiti & Zila Parishad Act, 1959, (hereinafter the Act ). It is pleaded that for the various irregularities and illegalities, Shri Navrang Rai Chief Executive Officer has already been suspended. THE State having supervisory powers over Zila Parishads, was entitled to act in the manner it has done and this Court, in the particular facts of this case, should not intervene. I have heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners viz. Shri M. Mridul in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 965/91, Shri K. N. Joshi for petitioners in S. B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1209/91 and 1304/91 and Shri Vinod Purohit in S. B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1310/91, 1311/91 and 1312/91. I have also heard Shri K. L. Jasmatiya, Government Advocate for the contesting respondents and Shri S. L. Jain for Zila Parishad, Jalore. Now, so far as basic facts are concerned, they are not in dispute. Petitioners in pursuance of and advertisement for filling up vacancies of teachers in 3rd grade applied to the D. E. C. They were selected. The Collector intervened and issued directions that the selected candidates be not appointed. D. E. C. ignored these directions and appointed the petitioners. Petitioners joined their duties but the services were terminated and they were relieved in pursuance of the directions of the Collector, ratified or adopted by the State Government. Prior to the termination of their services, the petitioners were not heard at all. ;