KESHOTE, J. - (1.) THIS cluster of special appeals arises from the order dated 13th of January, 1999 of the learned Single Judge passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3264/1997, Sadhana Bagarhatta vs. State of Rajasthan & Others alongwith five other writ petitions. Since a common question of law is involved in these special appeals, they are heard and being decided together by this common order.
(2.) IN all six writ petitions were filed by the respondents herein. Against the order passed in the six writ petitions, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has preferred Special Appeals mentioned in the title of this judgment at Serial No. 1 to 6. Where as the Special Appeals mentioned at Serial No. 7 to 10 are preferred by the appellants therein, who were not parties in the writ petitions filed by the respondents hearing, and are adversely affected by the order of the learned Single Judge. We find from the appeals at Serial No. 7 to 10 that in three appeals leave to file appeals was granted by the Court. The appeal at Serial No. 11 has been filed by the respondent in Special Appeal at Serial No. 1, who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, against the part of the order of the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in these appeals has been stayed and that stay order is in operation till date. For the disposal of these special appeals, the facts, which more or less are similar, are taken up from D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 185/1999. The writ petitions, six in number, were decided by the learned Single Judge by common order as he was of the opinion that the question of law and facts involved therein are common and these are directed against the selection of Lecturers in Beauty Culture made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, `the RPSC' ). An advertisement was issued vide notification NO. 1/95 by the appointing authority for inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment by selection as Lecturers in various disciplines including the Beauty Culture, for a short term i. e. for a period of four months or till the regularly selected candidates are made available by the RPSC which ever was earlier. The respondent in the special appeal applied in response to the advertisement aforesaid. She was appointed on temporary basis. It was her case that the was duly selected by the Selection Committee constituted and adjudged her suitability. A notification for regular recruitment of the Lectures in Beauty Culture was issued by the RPSC on 20. 1. 1997. The petitioner respondent applied for the same. She was interview but she4 was not figured in the select list published by the RPSC. She made the grievance before the learned Single Judge by filing writ petition that the selected candidates were not possessing the requisite professional or teachers experience of two year to their credit as prescribed for appointment on the post. It is stated that some of the selected candidates had experience of little less than more than a year. For the candidates to be appointed as Lectures in Beauty Culture two years experience was prescribed as essential qualification. But, in the Directorate of the Technical Education, the qualification of experience has been prescribed as preferably only.
(3.) IT is submitted that the petitioner is highly qualified candidate fulfilling all the requisite qualifications and had the experience of more than two years at the relevant time but the persons having lesser qualification with less experience have been selected. In the writ petition, the petitioner respondent has also challenged the amendment made whereby the word preferably has been added in the Rajasthan Technical Education Rules, 1963 (for short, `the Rules, 1963' ). The writ petition was contested by the RPSC and the State Government. The learned Single Judge disposed of all the writ petitions under the impugned order. The operative part thereof reads as under. " For the reason that the selected candidates had not been made parties to the writ petition, it shall not be appropriate to quash the selections at this stage. However, in the present case, after seeing the result and for the reasons mentioned above, the selections cannot be said to be fair. it is necessary that fresh selections be made of the candidates who had appeared before the Interview Board on the dates as mentioned above. The authority shall ear/mark the marks under different items of academic qualifications, experience, extra-curricular activities etc. etc. and shall hold the interviews of all the candidates afresh and draw up fresh select list and declare the result selections already made shall continue and status quo shall be maintained till the fresh experience is completed by the RPSC within six months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. All the writ petitions are disposed of with the above-said observations. No order as to costs. " The learned counsel for the appellant RPSC, inter alia, raised a contention that the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside only on the ground that it is against the principles of natural justice and fair play. It is submitted that the selected candidates were not impleaded as respondents in the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises. In his submission though the learned Single Judge has observed that the selected candidates have not been made party to the writ petition and it shall not be appropriate to quash the selection at this stage but virtually he has, in the result, quashed the selections. ;