- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant -Municipal Board as well as the appellant -State.
(2.) THESE four Special Appeals have been filed by the State of Rajasthan and the Municipal Board, Rawat Bhata, District Chittorgarh, against the interim orders passed by learned Single Judge by which a direction has been issued that salaries be paid to 122 Safai Karamcharis, whose services were terminated after enquiries were made, in which findings were recorded of large scale illegalities and irregularities in the selection of 122 Safai Karamcharis in the Nagar Palika, Rawat Bhata, District Chittorgarh.
(3.) IT is submitted that a writ petition being SBCWP No. 13040/2013 "Ratan Lal Narwal v. State of Rajasthan" was filed by the unsuccessful candidates to restrain appointments of Safai Karamcharis in pursuance to an appointment order dated 4.10.2013. Learned Single Judge observed that all the selected candidates have already been allowed to join the duties in pursuance to the appointment order and an enquiry has already been ordered against the selection process, which is pending before the Director, Local Self Government and, on which, the writ petition was disposed -of with the directions to the Director, Local Self Government to conclude the pending enquiry within a period of two months. An enquiry at the level of Nagar Palika, Rawat Bhata, District Chittorgarh, was made by an Enquiry Committee in respect of the selections. In the enquiry report dated 5.12.2013 forwarded to the Director, Local Self Government, it was found that the selections were made for the excessive number of posts sanctioned by the State Government. There was requirement of 53 Safai Karamcharis in all, as against which 23 are already working and, therefore, there was requirement of only 30 posts, whereas 216 posts were sanctioned. The Selection Committee was not appointed in accordance with the directions issued by the Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan dated 3.5.2013 and 7.6.2013. The eligibility of the persons was not taken into consideration, inasmuch as persons below the age of 18 years as well as those, who were above 35 years were considered for selection and appointed. Preference was not given to those persons, who are traditionally engaged in the work of cleaning, road sweeping, sewerage cleaning and those who are still engaged in the manual scavenging. Appointments were given to more than one persons of a family and that the statutory rules were not followed. Those, who had more than two children after the appointed date, were selected. It was found that the statutory rules of selections were given a complete go by and that in some of the cases, where the appointments were made, the applicants were not present on the dates of interview. It was also found that the appointment orders allowed persons to join duties on back date i.e. 4.10.2013, whereas selections and appointments were made subsequently.;