CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THIS case has an extremely convoluted history as this case has not only travelled from this Court to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but is also co-related to a petition filed at the Principal Bench of the High Court at Jodhpur. In order to understand the extent of controversy involved, it is imperative that the facts of the case be narrated in detail. The facts of the case are as under:
(2.) ALTHOUGH the present appeal has been filed by number of appellants, this Court is concerned only with the case of Dr. B. L. Chopra, appellant No. 7. For, the controversy revolves only around him. Dr. B. L. Chopra was initially appointed on adhoc basis on the post of Assistant Professor (Orthopaedics) vide order dated 12. 8. 1991. The adhoc appointment was to last till candidates, regularly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (`r. P. S. C. ' for short), were available. On 10. 12. 1993, an advertisement for regular appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors was issued by the R. P. S. C. Dr. B. L. Chopra along with eleven other persons filed a writ petition, registered as S. B. C. W. P. No. 446/1994, before this Court. In the writ petition, they prayed that their services should be regularised without their having to face the written examination (the screening test) and they should be selected only on the basis of the interview. Vide judgment dated 15. 9. 1995, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioners, including Dr. Chopra, should be exempted from the written test, but they had to face the interview. Aggrieved by the said judgment, both the petitioners and the R. P. S. C. filed appeals against the said judgment. The present appeal is the one filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 15. 9. 1995. However, during the pendency of the appeal the R. P. S. C. took the interview of the appellants, including Dr. Chopra and selected them for the said posts without asking them to sit for the written test. Although other appellants, whose results were declared, were allowed to continue on the regular basis from the date of their selection, Dr. Chopra's services were terminated vide order dated 2. 7. 1996. Therefore, Dr. Chopra filed a stay application before this Court. Vide order dated 11. 7. 1996, this Court directed that Dr. Chopra's services shall not be terminated. Despite the direction of this Court, the respondents did not implement the said order. Therefore, Dr. Chopra filed a contempt petition before this Court. However, the contempt petition was directed to be decided at the time of the final hearing of the appeal. Later on, vide judgment dated 3. 5. 2001, this Court had dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellants and the one filed by the R. P. S. C. But, surprisingly while dismissing the said appeals, this Court did not give any decision with regard to Dr. B. L. Chopra, whose termination had been stayed by this Court. Therefore, Dr. Chopra filed a review petition against the judgment dated 3. 5. 2001. Meanwhile, since the R. P. S. C. was aggrieved by the judgment dated 3. 5. 2001, it filed a S. L. P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But, the same was dismissed by the Apex Court, in limine, vide its order dated 10. 9. 2001. In the review petition, this Court directed the R. P. S. C. to file an affidavit with regard to the selection of Dr. Chopra and for not appointing and continuing him on the post of Assistant Professor, although a person lower in merit, namely Dr. M. K. Aseri, was appointed and continued. In the affidavit filed by the R. P. S. C. , they admitted that, indeed, Dr. Chopra was selected. However, he could not be appointed as Dr. M. K. Aseri had filed a petition at the Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur and was granted a stay in his favour vide order dated 26. 11. 1997. Therefore, the R. P. S. C. claimed that because of the stay granted by the Principal Bench, Dr. Chopra could not be appointed and could not be permitted to continue on the post of Assistant Professor. Vide judgment dated 27. 2. 2004, the Principal Seat at Jodhpur decided the case of Dr. M. K. Aseri. The Court clearly held that the posts of Asstt. Professor (Ortho.) were increased from nine to fifteen, out of which three posts were reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidates in accordance with the roster system. Furthermore, that three candidates namely, Dr. Ratan Lal Dayma, Dr. Babu Lal Khajoti and Dr. Bhanwar Lal Chopra had secured 54, 52 and 51 marks respectively. By the dint of his merit, Dr. R. L. Dayma was selected against the general quota. Therefore, Dr. M. K. Aseri is to be treated as selected against the third post reserved for Scheduled Caste category. Thus, while Dr. Chopra was to be selected against the vacancy No. 2, Dr. Aseri was to be selected against vacancy No. 3 in the Scheduled Caste category. Curiously, even after the said pronouncement of the Principal Seat, while Dr. M. K. Aseri has been appointed and has been permitted to continue on the post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner is yet to be appointed on the said post. Thus, clearly while a person, lower in merit has been appointed and is working on the post, the petitioner is still hoping that justice would be done to him.
(3.) WHEN the review petition filed by Dr. Chopra came up for hearing on 5. 5. 2005, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the S. L. P. filed by the R. P. S. C. before the Apex Court was dismissed in limine. However, vide judgment dated 5. 5. 2005, the review petition was dismissed. Since, Dr. Chopra was aggrieved by the order dated 5. 5. 2005, he filed an application for recalling the said order, but the said application was also dismissed vide order dated 19. 7. 2005. Left with no other option, Dr. Chopra filed a S. L. P. before the Apex Court. It was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the respondents had admitted in the case of Dr. M. K. Aseri that Dr. Chopra was, indeed, selected, although not appointed. Moreover, it was equally brought to the notice of the Apex Court that vide order dated 11. 7. 1997 this Court had granted stay against the termination of Dr. Chopra's services. Considering these two facts, vide order dated 13. 10. 2006 the Apex Court has remanded the case back to this Court for re-considering the case of Dr. Chopra on merits. Hence, this case before this Court. A bare perusal of the facts narrated above lead to the following conclusions: ;