- (1.) - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these special appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts are being taken from (Roop Kumari Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 184/99.
(2.) THE writ petitioner-Roop Kumari Joshi in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2967/ 98 has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 12. 1. 1999 made by the learned Single Judge dismissing her writ petition alongwith similar other writ petitions. THE few facts which are considered to be necessary and relevant for the disposal of these appeals are the following:- The appellant was working on the post of Teacher Gr. II. She was promoted to the post of School Lecturer (Commerce) in the year 1989 and she has been working as such by the orders of the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, in accordance with the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (for short `the Rules' ). As per the said Rules, recruitment for the post of School Lecturer is to be done filing the posts 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. According to the appellant, she was eligible for being promoted to the post of School Lecturer (Commerce ). However, she was promoted on ad hoc basis alongwith other persons. Later, the appellant and other persons similarly promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of School Lecturer (Commerce) were reverted to the post of School Teacher vide order dated 13. 9. 1991. Against the said order of reversion dated 13. 9. 1991, some persons preferred S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5658/91 and other batch of writ petitions at Jaipur Bench of this Court. The appellant and others filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4992/91 and other batch of writ petition against the same order before the principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur. The learned Single Judge of Jaipur Bench disposed of (Anjani Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and another (1), and batch of writ petitions by his order dt. 22. 1. 1992 allowing them. The operative portion of the said order reads: "all the Writ Petitions are therefore allowed. The order of reversion of the petitioners issued on 13. 9. 91 is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to make yearwise determination of vacancies of Teacher Gr. I (School Lecturers) in Commerce for the years 1982-83 and onwards. They are also directed to issue seniority list of Teachers Gr. II (Commerce ). After issue of seniority list and after yearwise determination of vacancies, the Respondents are directed to undertake exercise for making regular promotions keeping in view the overall quota meant for direct recruitment and for promotion. This exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of presentation of copy of this order. While making yearwise promotions, the Respondents must keep in mind the rules of promotions in particular years for which vacancies are required to be filled. Parties are left to bear their own costs. " Prahlad Das Sewak vs. State and Ors. (2) and batch of writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge at Principal Seat, Jodhpur by his order dated 2. 7. 1997 dismissing them with the following observations:- "the grievance of the petitioner that no DPC had met after 1982 is no more available to them in view of the written statement filed by the State wherein it is specifically mentioned that the DPC had met in the year 1994 during the pendency of the writ petition. There is no merit in the writ petition in view of the pleadings, pleaded by the parties and therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs. However, because of the reason that during pendency of the writ petition, DPC had met and some selections had been made, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the same, if so advised by filing a fresh petition for the fresh cause of action arising after filing the present writ petition. "
(3.) IT is relevant to state here that the appellant was one of the writ petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 4992/91 and batch of cases. According to the appellant, as per the directions given by the Court in Anjani Kumar's case (supra), the State Government was under an obligation to determine the year-wise vacancies, even after the year 1994, but without determining the vacancies after 1994, the reversion order dated 24. 11. 1997 was passed. In the said order dated 24. 11. 1997 passed by the Director, Primary and Secondary Edu- cation, Rajasthan, Bikaner, it was mentioned that since the various writ petitions filed against the order dated 13. 9. 1991 have been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, the order dated 13. 9. 1991 came into force and the concerned officers were directed to comply with the said order and send compliance report to the Directorate. Aggrieved by the said order dated 24. 11. 1997, one Shyam Sunder filed a writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that he could avail the alternative remedy by way of filing appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant alongwith others filed appeals before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal'), but the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, looking to the reply and stand of the respondents that due to less number of students in the subject of Commerce, there were excess School Lecturers and, therefore, the State Government could not hold DPC, nor the direction could be issued by the Tribunal to determine year wise vacancies and that the State Government had discretion to fill up the vacancies, as such, no direction could be issued by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dismissing appeals, the appellant filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2967/98. Similarly, other persons filed batch of writ petitions challenging the very order of the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge, with their consent and as requested by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them on all legal issues on the ground that substantial questions of law required authoritative decision. The learned Single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions by his order dated 12. 1. 1999. Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal being D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 184/99 and other writ-petitioners have filed appeals being D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 99/1999 (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3369/98), D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 100/99 (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2962/98), D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 101/99 (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2884/98), D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 102/99 (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3011/98), D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 103/99 (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2885/98), D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 104/99 (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3356/98), D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 140/99 (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2967/98), D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 141/99 (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2945/98), D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 142/99 (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3690/98), D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 143/ 99 (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2944/98), D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 144/99, (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2946/98) and D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 214/99 (arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3592/98 ). ;