PREM SHANKER ASOPA, J. - (1.) Since common question of facts and law relating to the continuation of Vidyarthi Mitras till the candidates regularly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC)/persons regularly selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee are available and further declaring action of the respondents of invoking the contract clause of automatic end of the services of the petitioners as Vidyarthi Mitra on 15.4.2009 is under challenge in all these writ petitioners, therefore, all the cases have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) The necessary common facts of the case are that all the petitioners have been appointed as Vidyarthi Mitra after 2.6.2008 when a circular was issued by the State Government whereby sanction was granted to implement Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme on account of possible delay in availability of the RPSC selected and further persons recommended by the DPC for promotion on 6,000 posts of Lecturers, 5,000 posts of Senior Teacher and 1200 posts of Teacher Grade III and in order to run the teaching work in a proper manner. The Vidyarthi Mitra Scheme approved by the Finance Department vide its circular dated 9.1.2007 was ordered to be implemented as stated above by appointing Vidyarthi Mitra on the fixed remuneration of Rs. 4,000/- for Lecturer, Rs. 3,000/- for Senior Teacher and Teacher Grade-Ill Rs. 2750/- per month, with the condition that the said recruitment will be made till the candidates regularly selected by the RPSC/DPC are made available or till 29.2.2009, whichever is earlier.
(3.) In pursuance to the said circular, all the petitioners have been appointed as Vidyarthi Mitra by the competent authorities after notifying the vacancies in the region and preparation of the merit list but the term of appointment is the same as referred in the circular dated 2.6.2008. The said term was extended vide order dated 4.12.2008 from 1.3.2009 to 15.4.2009 and when the term up to 15.4.2009 was about to expire or expired, all the petitioners have approached this Court and interim orders for continuing their services were passed considering the fact that the examinations were continuing. The cases were heard on 4.5.2009 and the submission of counsel for the parties along with citations submitted on that day were recorded which are as under: "Counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that all the petitioner(s) have been appointed as 'Vidhyarthi Mitra' in 'Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme' and the said scheme has not been closed so far but their services are either terminated or are being terminated. During the continuation of the scheme, the termination/steps to terminate are arbitrary. In support of their contention, the counsel for the petitioner(s) has placed reliance on para 25 of the judgment reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court Page 2130 titled as State of Haryana & Ors. etc. etc. vs. Piara Singh & Ors. etc. etc. Counsel for the petitioner(s) has further placed reliance on the judgment reported in (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases Page 290 titled as State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Supreet Rajpal & Anr. and (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 292 titled as Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner(s) appointments are contractual in nature and further they have invoked the clause of the contract, therefore, it cannot be said that their action to terminate or steps to terminate them are arbitrary. In support of the said submission, the counsel for the respondent-State placed reliance on para 19, 28, 30, 43, 45, 47, 49, 52 and 55 of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1 titled as Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. Counsel for the respondent-State further placed reliance on para 68, 69, 70 and 116 of the judgment reported in (2008) 10 SCC Page 1 titled as Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & Ors. Counsel for the respondent-State also placed reliance on the judgment reported in (2008) 12 SCC Page No. 136 titled as State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, and judgment of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4276/2008 titled as Anil Kumar Kothari vs. State & Ors. Decided on 5.5.2008 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3136/2008 titled as Vikram Singh & Ors. vs. State & Ors. Decided on 16.7.2008. On the strength of the aforesaid judgments, the counsel for the respondent-State further argued that the contractual employee has no right to hold the post/continue in the employment even if the scheme is continuing and they are further free to make fresh appointments.";