B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition came-up for interim order alongwith identical matters mentioned in Schedule "A" to this judgment. However, learned counsel for the parties submitted that as the matters involve reversion and issue of promotion, the same may be heard finally. Though in all these cases the petitioners have preferred appeals against the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, which were limited to the issue of reversion, learned counsel for the parties, sought permission of the Court to argue all legal issues for the reason that the petitions involve certain substantial questions of law requiring authoritative decision. In the interest of justice, learned counsel were allowed to agitate all the issues except the issue of maintainability of the appeals by the present petitioners before the Tribunal.
(2.) For determining the controversy involved herein, the provisions of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") require consideration. 50% posts of the School Lecturer (Commerce) are to be filled-up by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion on the basis of seniority after determining the vacancies under rule 9 of the said Rules from the post of Teacher Gr II working in the department. It appears that the Department did not carry the exercise either of filling the vacancies directly or by promotion for a very long time. Thus, the present petitioners and other similar persons filed writ petitions before the Jaipur Bench and the Principal Seat of this Court in 1991. The judgment was rendered by the Jaipur Bench in a bunch cases alongwith S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5658/1991, Anjani Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and others, etc. etc. on 22.1.1992 . While interpreting the provisions of the said Rules, this Court held that determination of year-wise vacancies under rule 9 of the Rules is mandatory. However, looking to the fact that the respondents have not taken the exercise for more than two decades, the Court directed them to determine the vacancies year-wise and proceed with appointments within a stipulated period. While deciding the said case, this court has placed reliance upon large number of judgments of this Court decided earlier. The relevant part of the judgment runs as under:- "In the light of these decisions it has to be held that the provisions contained in rule 9 for year-wise determination of vacancies, which are required to the filled by direct recruitment as well as by promotion, are mandatory. Sub-rule (2) of rule 9 imposes an additional obligation on the competent authority to make year-wise determination meant for promotion quota, if such vacancies have not been determined for previous years. Since the provisions contained in rule 9 are mandatory and the failure of the respondents to make year-wise determination of vacancies for the posts of Teacher Grade I (School Lecturer) (Commerce) cannot, in any manner, be justified , the respondents are directed to make year-wise determination of the vacancies of Teacher Grade I (School Lecturer) in Commerce for the years 1982-83 and onwards and after determination of the 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 the copy of this order. While making year-wise promotion, the respondents must keep in mind the Rules of Promotion in particular years for which the vacancies are required to be filled."
(3.) The writ petitions filed before the Principal Seat bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4229/1994, Prahlad Das Sewak v. State of Rajasthan and others , etc. etc. were decided by the judgment and order dated 2.7.97 and the present petitioners, who were also the petitioners therein, requested the Court to dispose of the writ petitions in terms of the judgment delivered by the Jaipur Bench. However, the Court refused to do so and for such a refusal, the Court observed as under- "The judgment in writ petition No. 5658/1991 is not applicable in the present cases. There is a change of situation and in the case in hand, it has been specifically averred by the State Government that the D.P.C. had met in the year 1994 and proper selection was made. However, it is not clear from the written statement whether the names of the petitioners were considered by the D.P.C. and it is also not clear from the written statement whether any of the petitioners in the writ petition was considered within the Zone of consideration...being faced with the situation, there is no alternative with this Court but to dispose of all the writ petitions at this stage with the observation that the petitioners, if are aggrieved of the selections made by D.P.C. in the year 1994, or if the petitioners found that "seniority cum merit" has been by-passed without any reasonable cause and if it is found that the names of the petitioners were not considered in case they were under the Zone of Consideration, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the selection or their non-selection on any of the grounds available to them in view of the changed circumstances during the pendency of the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioners that no D.P.C. 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 D.P.C. 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 no costs. However, because of the reason that during the pendency of the writ petition, D.P.C. 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." (Emphasis added).;