LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS group of eight special appeals is from the common order dated 3rd April, 2006 whereby the Single Judge disposed of 23 writ petitions. As the controversy in these matters is identical, we heard these eight appeals together and dispose them of by this common order.
(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellants in these group of appeals, `the petitioners' and Rajasthan Public Service Commission, `the Commission. ' The Commission issued an advertisement No. 5/2003-04 on 21. 1. 2004 inter-alia for filling 369 vacancies of Medical Officers under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that if the applications are received in large number and it was not possible or convenient to call all the applicants, then the Commission may short-list the applicants based on minimum prescribed eligibility in science and higher eligibility in experience or screening test for calling the limited number of applicants for interview. The petitioners who are ad-hoc temporary Medical Officers appointed under Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 (for short, `rules of 1963') challenged this condition before this Court. Inter-alia, the petitioners sought declaration that the persons who have put in three years ad-hoc service or more, shall not be made subjected to `screening test' for the purpose of short-listing and they may be allowed to directly interview in pursuance of advertisement dated 21. 1. 2004 and in case the petitioners are selected, they may be recommended for appointment. The Single Judge did not accept the case of the petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions by his order dated 3rd April, 2006. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals have been preferred. The contentions that were advanced before the Single Judge were reiterated before us. The decision of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Surekha vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5424/1990, decided on 11. 4. 1994 was pressed into service by the counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that from that judgment, the special appeal was preferred before the Division Bench which came to be dismissed and then matter was taken to Supreme Court by the Commission but the order of the Single Judge was not interfered with. The counsel also relied upon the decision of the Single Judge in the case of Dr. Bhanwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 446/1994), decided on 15. 9. 1995 (RLR 1995 (1) Page 487 and the decision of the Division Bench in the said matter reported in RLR 2001 (2) 149. The counsel, this, submitted that this Court has no construction of identical rules directed that the ad-hoc appointees on urgent temporary basis are not required to go through `screening test' by the RPSC pursuant to the advertisement and they are entitled to be called directly for interview. It is pertinent to notice that the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Surekha was challenged by the Commission before the Supreme Court in special leave to appeal (Civil) No. 12740-12741/95. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition for special leave to appeal on 5. 6. 1995. Although the relevant portion of the said order has been quoted by the Single Judge in his order dated 3. 4. 2006, we deem it fit and proper to reproduce the relevant part of the said order here as well. ``we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In so far as the direction given by the High Court dispensing with the requirement regarding screening test in respect of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and other adhoc appointees who have rendered service for three years or more, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the direction given by the High Court. We are, however, of the view that in the matter of selection for the two vacancies for the post of Lecturers in Medicine for the year 1990-91, the appellant-Rajasthan Public Service Commission may consider the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 along with other applicants who are found eligible for appointment to the vacancies of the year 1990-1991 and who have submitted their applications. While considering, the Commission will take into account the performance and service record of the appellants who are in government service. Time for consideration is extended by four weeks. In the event of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 being selected, their seniority will have to be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Rules. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. "
(3.) IN special leave to appeal (Civil) No. 12599-12602/96, Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Deepak Verma and Another, decided on 7. 8. 1998, the Supreme Court clarified in unmistakable terms that the directions contained in the order dated June 5, 1995 in civil appeals arising out of special leave petitions No. 12740-41/95 (Dr. Rajendra Kumar Surekha) were given in the facts and circumstances obtaining therein and the said directions cannot be treated as laying down the law regarding selection for appointment by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, which has to be made in accordance with the relevant rules. IN our view, therefore, the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Surekha can not be cited as precedent. The reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Bhanwar Singh is also mis-placed. The matter in Dr. Bhanwar Singh was also carried to Supreme Court by Rajasthan Public Service Commission in special leave to appeal (Civil) No. 14821/2001. While disposing of that special leave to appeal on 10. 9. 2001, the Supreme Court said in unmistakable terms that the order passed by the High Court is not to be treated as precedent. This is what the Supreme Court said:      " Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, particularly, the fact that some of the respondents are in service for more than ten years, the impugned order does not call for any interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. However, we make it clear that the order passed by the High Court is not to be treated as precedent. " Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 reads thus:      " 19. Scrutiny of applications.- The Commission shall scrutinise the applications received by them and require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these Rules as seem to them desirable to appear before them for interview: Provided that the decision of the Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate shall be final. " ;