JAIN, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the third proviso to Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat. Samities and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959 as ultravires to the Constitution of India and prays that the Notification dated. 22. 2,1991 (Anx. P/2) and Notification dated 26. 2. 1991 (Anx. P/3) being contrary to the provisions of Section 88 (2) (a) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act,1959 may be declared ultravires. It has also been prayed that the Circular dated 11. 8. 1989 (Anx. P/6)may be declared illegal and the petitioner's termination may be treated null and void and he may be treated in service with all consequential benefits and whatsoever selection made in pursuance of Anx. P/4 (Advertisement no. 5/91) by the alleged D. E. C. may be treated as null and void.
(2.) THE writ petition is pending admission since 28. 1. 1993. As ordered, the case is listed today for final disposal in view of the decision rendered in Special Appeal No. 209/94. As agreed by the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1959) the minimum qualification is Secondary with B. S. T. C. whereas the petitioner who possessed B. A. & B. ED. was called for interview on 8. 12. 1988 and was appointed as Primary School Teacher for six months on temporary basis along with others. It is also alleged that a Circular dated 11. 8. 1989 was issued by the State Government whereby it was decided that all those employees who were in employment after 31. 12. 1985 and were continuing on 16. 5. 88 may be regularised subject to possessing requisite qualification training, age limit etc. after due screening. It is further alleged that in pursuance of advertisement No. 5/91 (Ex. P/4 dt. 7. 10. 92) issued for the post of Primary school teachers, he applied. Thereafter, another advertisement (Ex. P 5) was also issued for female teachers. Merit list of Advertisement No. 5/91 was issued. The petitioner's services along with others were terminated vide impugned order dt. 7. 1. 1993 w. e. f. 12. 1. 1993. Dissatisfied with the termination, the petitioner has approached this court by way of this writ petition challenging the impugned Notifications Anx. P/2 & P/3. The main contention of Mr. Choudhary is that the third proviso to Rule 17 of the Rules, 1959 is arbitrary, as in this Rule it is mentioned that persons who were provided appointment on or before 31. 12. 1985 are entitled for regularisation whereas the persons like petitioners have not been given such benefit despite the fact that they have served for a longer period than the persons who are granted benefit of regularisation by virtue of third proviso. He has contended that the Notifications Anx. P/2 & P/3 may also, be declared ultravires as the impugned Notification Ex. P/3 is contrary to the provisions of Section 88 (2) (a) of the Act,1959. He has relied on Arvind kumar Vs. State (1), Ram Dass Verma Vs. State (2), Mahadev Prasad Vs. RSRTC (3), All Manipur Regular Post Vacancies Substitue Teachers Association Vs. State (4), Good Year India Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (5) and Gulam Abbas Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Mr. Bishnoi, counsel for the non-petitioners, submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as the vires of Rule 17 of the Rules,1959 has been upheld by Division Bench of this court in Baljit Kaur Vs. State (7), so this point cannot be reagitated. He has urged that the other prayers are fully covered by a Division Bench decision of this court rendered in Arnod Panchayat Samiti Vs. State (D. B. S. W. Pet. No. 979/90)decided on 6th October,1993 along with similar matters as per Schedule attached with the decision whereby the benefit of cut off date was extended only to those persons who were already continuing service on the date of judgment.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited at Bar. So far as the challenge to the validity of Rule 17 of the Rules,1959 is concerned, suffice it to say that a Division Bench of this court in Baljit Kaur. Vs. State (9), while dismissing the writ petitions held that it no-where runs contrary to any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules of 1959. The learned Judges held that the rule is valid and intra vires. Thus, the argument of Mr. Choudhary challenging the validity of Rule 17 is baseless and the grounds which he wants to raise were available to him at that point of time. Now, we cannot reappreciate the points particularly when no remedy was availed against that judgment. Therefore, the question which the counsel for the petitioner wants to raise is no more res-integra and no relief can be granted to the petitioner on this count. So far as the contention or Mr. Choudhary that Anx. P/3 dt. 26. 2. 1991 is contrary to the provisions of Section 88 (2) (a) of the Act,1959 and that Anx. P/2 dt. 22. 2. 1991 whereby amendment has been made in Rule 17 of the Rules,1959 both are illegal and ultravires to the Constitution, is concerned, the same has no substance and no relief can be granted under these prayers. ;