ARUN KUMAR, J. - (1.) A large number of writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by one common judgment dated 19th July, 2000, dismissing the writ petitions. These appeals have been filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government had a large number of vacancies in the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. The State Government was not in a position to fill the posts of regular basis because the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the RPSC'), was not in a position to take necessary steps for regular appointments to the posts. Therefore, in pursuance of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 ad hoc short term appointments were made, Rule 26 provides as under: Urgent Temporary Appointment: (1) A vacancy in the service which cannot be filled in immediately either by direct recruitment or by promotion under the rules may be filled in by the Government or by the authority competent to make appointment as the case may be by appointing in an officiating capacity thereto an officer eligible for appointment to the post by promotion or by appointing temporarily thereto a person eligible for direct recruitment to the Service, where such direct recruitment has been provided under the provisions of these Rules. Provided that such an appointment will not be continued beyond a period of one year without referring the case to the Commission for concurrence, where such concurrence is necessary, and shall be terminated immediately on its refusal to concur. Provided further that in respect of the Service or a post in the Service for which both the above methods of recruitment have been prescribed, the Government or the authority competent to make appointment, as the case may be, shall not, save with the specific permission of the Government in the Department of Personnel in the case of State Services and Government in the Administrative Department concerned in respect of other services, fill the temporary vacancy against the direct recruitment quota by a whole time appointment for a period exceeding three months, otherwise than out of persons eligible for direct recruitment and after a short term advertisement. Selection Committees headed by the District Collectors and comprising officers of the Animal Husbandry Department in the respective districts selected eligible candidates and short term appointments were made vide order passed in July, 1998, 183 persons were appointed. The appointments were made on ad hoc basis for a period of four months or till the regulalry selected candidates by the RPSC were made available, whichever was earlier. Admittedly, the services of these recruits were extended from -time to time on same terms and conditions. In August, 1999, 100 posts of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were advertised for the purpose of regular appointment. The RPSC made regular selections for 100 posts in June, 2000. As regular appointments could not be made expeditiously the Government sought concurrence from the RPSC for extension of service of the ad hoc appointees. The Commission accorded sanction only upto 30th June 2000. Therefore, the Government issued orders that the services of the short term ad hoc appointees would not be extended beyond 30th June 2000. These persons challenged these orders by way of writ petitions filed in this Court. The petitions can be broadly divided into two categories. The first category is of those ad hoc appointees who were successful in getting selection in the selection held by the RPSC for regular appointments in June, 2000. The other category is of persons who failed to get selection in the said selection for regular appointment. Since services of all the 183 ad hoc short term appointees were sought to be terminated irrespective of the fact whether they were selected for regular appointment in June, 2000 selection by the RPSC or not, both categories of persons were aggrieved and therefore, they approached the Court. The prayer of the persons who got selected in the selections for regular appointments is that they should be treated as regularly appointed and their services be not terminated, while the prayer of the other category of petitioners was that since more are 183 posts and regular selection has been made by the RPSC only for 100 posts, regularly selected candidates in the remaining posts are still not available and, therefore, their services should not be terminated. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed all the writ petitions mainly on the ground that all the 183 appointments made on short term ad hoc basis were contrary to Rules and, therefore, these appointments were illegal and no benefit could be granted to the petitioners.
(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants have in the first instance argued that this was no body's case that the 183 ad hoc appointments were illegal and therefore, they could not be continued. Our attention was drawn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in reply to the writ petition where it is stated that the posts for temporary appointments were advertised on 27th August, 1997 and by letter dated 16th September, 1997 a Committee was constituted consisting of District Collector and Animal Husbandry Officers to select candidates for temporary appointments for four months in the year 1998. On directions of the State Government vide letter dated 9th June 1998 the Director, Animal Husbandry Department issued a short term advertisement on 19th June, 1998 to appoint temporary Veterinary doctors for fixed short term on the selected candidates from RPSC were made available. It was in pursuance of this that districtwise selection committees were constituted consisting of the District Collector of the Area and the Department of Animal Husdbandry who made selection of eligible persons for temporary short term appointments to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. Thus the Government never questioned the validity of these appointments. The Government has not taken the stand that these appointments were initially illegal nor even during the course of hearing of these appeals it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the initial appointments of 183 persons on ad hoc short term basis were in any way illegal or questionable. Rule 26 of the Animal Husbandry Service Rules referred to hereinbefore permits such appointments. Therefore, when the validity of the appointments was never in question, in our view the learned Single Judge ought not to have gone into the aspect of validity of the appointments of 183 doctors. Possibly, the only reason for treating these appointments as illegal was the provision that if the appointments were to be continued for more than a year, concurrence of the RPSC ought to have been sought. If that is so, in the first instance the initial appointments cannot be said to be bad because the question of concurrence will arise only on or about the expiry of one year period. Secondly, it is to be noted that if the State Government fails to seek the approval of the RPSC and extends the appointments from time to time the concerned employees cannot be faulted and cannot be made to suffer on this account Thirdly, it has often been held that provisions regarding approval of the Public Service Commission being required, are only directory and not mandatory. For all these reasons we are unable to hold that initial appointments were illegal or contrary to the Rules.;