- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also heard Shri Banwari Sharma, appearing for the intervenors, who were selected and appointed as Ayurved Chikitsaks, after appearing in the examination, conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), in pursuance to an advertisement issued on 15.03.1995, held in the year 1996.
(2.) ALL these intra -Court Special Appeals arise out of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 06.01.2010, by which he allowed the writ petitions, declaring Proviso 6 to Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 (in short, 'the Rules of 1973'), added by the Notification dated 08.04.1996, to be illegal and unconstitutional, and accordingly, struck it down. Learned Single Judge further directed that the petitioners and those in that category, are held entitled to be ranked senior to those Ayurved Chikitsaks, who were regularized by way of screening by virtue of Proviso 5 to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973. Before proceeding to discuss the facts of the case, we may observe that the impugned judgment has been rendered by learned Single Judge, in ignorance of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 19.04.1994, in Ayurved Chikitsak Welfare Association, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5598/1991), reported in 1994(2) WLC(Raj.) 452. By this judgment, learned Single Judge, considering the nature of appointment, directed that all those Ayurved Chikitsaks, who were appointed prior to the year 1990 by the Director, Ayurvedic Department, Government of Rajasthan, be treated as substantive Ayurved Chikitsaks, as they were appointed after selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee. He had also directed the respondents to confirm such Ayurved Chikitsaks against the available substantive vacancies in the service. Such confirmation was made effective from the date of availability of the vacancies. They were also held entitled to seniority from the date of their substantive appointment, but that they will be made junior to those, who have been appointed in the same manner, but prior to them. The judgment dated 19.04.1994 was challenged in the D.B. Special Appeal(Writ) No. 736/1994, which was dismissed on 29.01.2004, confirming the directions given by learned Single Judge.
(3.) WE are pained to observe that the petitioners, who are respondents before us, concealed the judgment dated 19.04.1994 from learned Single Judge. The stand taken by learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that the judgment was not in their knowledge, is difficult to believe, as they were the members of the Ayurved Chikitsak Association, Jaipur, the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5598/1991, decided on 19.04.1994.;