B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THESE appeals are disposed of by this common order as it is arising out of the common judgment dated 27th May, 1998 delivered by the learned Single Judge dismissing main writ petition No. 884/98 and allied matters mentioned in the scheduled annexed to the judgment.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel Shri Mridual and Shri M.S. Singhvi, appearing for the appellants -original petitioners in all these appeals vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in dismissing all writ petitions. Respondent, Director, College Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, issued an advertisement on 6.10.1997 for temporarily filling up the posts of Teachers. The petitioners applied for the same and after due selection, they were given fixed term appointment upto 31st March, 1998. Thereafter, on 17.12.1997, Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertised the posts of Teacher for regular appointment. Several persons have applied including the petitioners for the regular selection pursuance to the advertisement issued by the R.P.S.C. It is just before their temporary appointments come to an end on 31st March, 1998 that the petitioners filed separate petitions before this Court and contended that the respondents be restrained from depriving the petitioners of the emoluments for the period of summer vacation and till the regular appointments are made in pursuance to the selection made by R.P.S.C. they should be continued in service. It was also contended that the appointment order of the petitioners fixing the term upto 31st March, 1998 was illegal, bad in law; therefore, liable to be set aside. However, the respondents' case was that the petitioners were given appointment for a fixed period upto 31st March, 1998 or till regular candidates selected by the R.P.S.C. are made available, which ever was earlier, therefore, they have no right to continue after 31st March, 1998 as knowing fully well the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and in the appointment order, they accepted the employment. Initially, the learned Single Judge while issuing notice to the other side, granted interim orders in favour of the petitioners and pursuance to that interim order, they continued in service even after 31st March, 1998. However, the learned Single Judge did not agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners at the time of final hearing, therefore, dismissed all the petitions and refused to continue the interim orders passed in their favour. Aggrieved by that common order of dismissing the writ petitions and refusing to extend the interim relief, the appellants have filed separate appeals. In some cases, the learned Vacation Judge granted interim order and in some cases not. It was contended by learned Counsel Shri Mridul as well as Shri M.S. Singhvi, appearing for the appellants that granting the appointment till 31st March, 1998 was not permissible, therefore, their services could not have been terminated on 31st March, 1998. However, it was contended by learned Counsel Shri M.R. Singhvi for the respondents that in the advertisement dated 6.10.1997 it was clearly mentioned that their appointments will be for a period of four months and knowing fully well that they would not be given appointment for more than four months, they accepted the temporary appointment, upto 31st March, 1998. The said appointment was not in violation of any rule rather it was in accordance with the Rules. It was submitted that having accepted the terms of appointment, they cannot be permitted to challenge the same on the eve of expiry of that period. He submitted that there was no compulsion on them to accept the appointment orders. They could have refused to accept the appointment if they were not prepared to accept the appointment upto 31st March, 1998.
(3.) THE fact which is not in dispute is that the appointment of the appellants was purely on temporary and ad hoc basis and that too for a fixed period upto 31st March, 1998 and it was made as per Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Educational (Collegiate Branch) Service Rules, 1986 (for short, 'the Rules'). Proviso (1) to Rule 29 clearly provides that such an appointment will not be continued beyond a period of one year without referring the case to the Commission for concurrence where such concurrence is necessary and shall be terminated immediately on its refusal to concur. Second proviso to Rule 29 provides for the temporary appointment which should be either upto the end of academic session or till a regular candidate selected by the Commission is made available which ever is earlier.;