Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Madan Mohan Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 19 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: RLW2006(1)RAJ688
JUDGMENT Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. Under the discretionary powers provided by Rule 296 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, the State Government appointed Madan Mohan Sharma and Dharmendra Kumar Sharma (MMS and DKS) on the post of Teacher Grade III in the year 2000. The persons who were more meritorious than MMS and DKS filed writ petitions seeking their appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III and quashing the appointment of MMS and DKS. Learned Single Judge vide order dated February 12, 2001 struck down Rule 296 and quashed the appointment of MMS and DKS. The prayer of the meritorious persons for appointing them on the said post was also declined. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge that these 73 appeals have been filed.
2. Contextual facts depict that on May 25, 1996 the posts of Teacher Grade III were advertised by Zila Parishad Sawai Madhopur wherein it was stipulated that the selection process will be held in terms of the Circular dated July 24,1995 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 17(2) of Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Act, 1959. Last date of submitting the applications and documents in support of the eligibility and merit was fixed as June 17, 1996. In the Circular dated July 24, 1995 it was stated that the marks secured by a candidate in Secondary and B.Ed/BSTC course shall constitute the basis of preparing his merit for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III.
3. On July 20, 1996 another circular was issued by the State Government where by the earlier criteria for determination of merit was superseded and revised criteria was prescribed, in terms of which the merit was to be prepared on the basis of marks secured in Higher Secondary and B.Ed./BSTC course. Accordingly the last date for submitting applications and documents in support of the eligibility and merit for selection/appointment was extended upto October 30, 1990. Thereafter it was further extended upto December 20, 1996.
4. On December 30, 1996 Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short '1996 Rules') were notified in the Gazette. Rule 266 provides that Senior Secondary with BSTC course shall be the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher.
5. A representative writ petition bearing No. 147/1997 titled Radhey Shyam Sharma and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan was filed which came to be allowed by learned Single Judge vide order dated November 6, 1997, whereby it was held that the criteria applicable on the date of issuance of the advertisement was to be followed and the State Government was directed to consider the merit of the candidates in view of the circular dated July 24, 1995 that is Secondary and B.Ed/BSTC course,
6. Four special appeals were filed against the said order of learned Single Judge. Out of the four appeals, DB Civil Special Appeal (writ) No. 100/1998 State of Rajasthan and Anr. V. Radhey Shyam Sharma and Anr. was filed by the State of Rajasthan and Anr. Appeal DB Civil Special Appeal (writ) No. 51/1998 Dharmendra Kumar Sharma and Madan Mohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. was filed by MMS and DKS. On September 10,1999 the permission was sought to withdraw the special appeals as well as the writ petition and the Division Bench passed following order:-
But, in the present case the relief sought for by the appellants is that the judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside, which, in fact, is the prayer of the respondents also when they were seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition itself. The result of withdrawal of the writ petition would be that the order of the learned Single Judge which was given in favour of the respondents shall stand nullified and thus we do not find any impediment in granting permission to the respondents (original petitioners) to withdraw their writ petition and accordingly the writ petition No. 147/97 Radhey Shyam Sharma and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. is permitted to be withdrawn. As a result of withdrawal of the writ petition No. 147/97, the order rendered by the learned Single Judge on November 6, 1997 no longer stands.
7. Thereafter the State Government and Zila Parishad Sawai Madhopur on the basis of retrospective revival of Circular dated July 24, 1995 proceeded to make appointment on the basis of Secondary qualification.
8. Being aggrieved of lowering down the criteria from Higher Secondary Education to Secondary Education, MMS and DKS filed the writ petition No. 1771/1999. During pendency of the writ petition, the State Government issued the Circular dated March 12, 1999, whereby the decision was taken for applying the prevalent criteria for selection for assessing the eligibility and merit of MMS and DKS invoking Rule 296 of 1996 Rules purporting to grant relaxation from the Rules,
9. It also appears that the State Government prepared the merit list in terms of circular dated July 24, 1995 in the month of September, 1999 and appointment of 232 candidates were made, out of the merit list prepared in terms of Rule 274 of 1996 Rules. It also appears that as per the order issued by the State Government 93 posts were available, which were to be filled in terms of the advertisement No. 1/96.
10. The State Government vide order No. 4254 dated December 16, 1999 under the discretionary power provided by Rule 296 issued direction to appoint MMS and DKS and the Panehayat Samiti Todabhim District Karauli appointed MMS and DKS vide orders dated January 6, 2000 and January 11, 2000 on the post of Teacher Grade III. After MMS and DKS were appointed several writ petitions were filed before Single Bench of this Court, which came to be decided on February 12, 2001. The operative part of the order read as under:--
Thus, in view of the above, SBCWP No. 1722/2000, Renu Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. succeeds and is allowed. The impugned Rule 296, as stood amended, is hereby struck down being ultra vires and unconstitutional conferring unbridled power upon the Executive. The appointments of respondents No. 3 and 4 are hereby quashed and as the grievance of the petitioner that she stands over and above the respondents No. 3 and 4, disappears because of quashing of their appointment. She cannot seek appointment being over and above them in the merit list. More so, as fresh advertisement has been issued in 1998 and appointments have been made in pursuance thereof, question of filling up the vacancies in pursuance of Advertisement 1/96 does not arise.
In all other petitions, as the relief of seeking appointment and quashing of appointments of respondents No. 3 and 4 had been sought, they also stand disposed of in view of the order passed in the case of Renu Sharma. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
11. Learned Counsel for MMS and DKS criticized the order of learned Single Judge from various angles and made following submissions:-
(i) Learned Single Judge has travel Judge beyond the case set up in . the writ petition by quashing the appointment given to MMS and DKS.
(ii) Although no plea to this effect was taken up in the writ petition yet the learned Single Judge has struck down Rule 296 of 1996 Rules and the appointments of the MMS and DKS on the premise that only 93 vacancies were advertised and the select list had expired. On the contrary it had been brought out in the reply to the writ petition filed by MMS and DKS that selection could not be earlier finalised because of litigation which was set into motion by persons who were seeking selection on the basis of secondary qualification and the special appeals which were filed in the matter came to be decided on September 10, 1999, whereafter on the basis of earlier prevalent criteria select list was prepared. Realizing that injustice had been caused to MMS and DKS a decision was taken by the State Government to remove such injustice by selecting and appointing the MMS and DKS on the basis of merit as per the higher secondary qualifications. In any case apart from MMS and DKS several other persons had been appointed against vacancies exceeding 93 vacancies which were originally advertised.
(iii) The findings given by learned Single Judge regarding the appointment of MMS and DKS being after the expiry of the select list on the premise that MMS and DKS had been appointed on March 19, 2000 was contrary to the record.
(iv) The appointment orders of MMS and DKS dated January 6, 2000 and January 11, 2000 had neither been placed on record, nor specifically assaulted in the writ petition. The said appointment orders could not have been quashed.
(v) Learned Single Judge committed an error by holding that admittedly the appointment of MMS and DKS was not on the basis of merit. No such admission was made and instead, it was specifically contended by MMS and DKS that as per law the merit was to be assessed on the basis of performance in the Higher Secondary Examination and upon realizing this legal position the State Government acted accordingly and appointed MMS and DKS.
(vi) Learned Single Judge has committed an error in law in interfering with the appointment given to MMS and DKS on the premise that the said appointments were not supported by reasons. There is no principle of law requiring and administrative authority to give reasons for the purpose of making appointment on a post.
(vii) Learned Single Judge has committed an error of law in striking down Rule 296 of 1996 Rules on the premise that it permits extension of the tenure of the select list.
(viii) The policy decision taken by the State Government to make selection on the basis of Higher Secondary qualification having thus been brought into existence by circular dated. July 20, 1996 arid notification dated December 30, 1996 (whereby the new rules were framed) the circular dated July 24, 1995 earlier issued laying down Secondary Examination qualification as the basis of selection ceased to be valid.
(ix) The State Government supported its policy decision till March 12, 1999, when it took a somersault and sought to resurrect the lower qualification which already stood superseded. MMS and DKS relied upon the policy decision so taken by the State Government also filed special appeal to support the said policy decision. The policy decision so taken prescribing the higher qualification as Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary was obviously in public interest. A representative writ petition was filed against the earlier decision taken by the State Government vide circular dated July 20, 1996 prescribing the higher qualification of Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary examination was subsequently withdrawn resulting in complete negation of judgment dated November 6, 1997 holding that -selections should be made on the basis of the criteria prevalent on the date of advertisement was issued.
12. Learned Counsel for the other appellants who claimed to be more meritorious though supported the impugned order of learned Single Judge so far it relates to quashing of the appointments of MMS and DKS and striking down Rule 296 of 1996 Rules, assailed only that part whereby claim of meritorious appellants was rejected on the premise that after quashing the appointment of MMS and DKS, question of meritorious appellants did not arise. Following submissions were made in support of this contention;-
(i) Learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the merit list, which was prepared on March 7, 1998, could be given effect to only academic session in terms of Rule 274(1) (ii) of 1996 Rules, as such no appointment could have been made. According to learned Counsel since the order was issued by the State Government in the month of September, 1999 and merit was prepared thereafter in regard to advertisement No. 1/96 the period of one year will commence only from September, 1999. Thus the very finding recorded by learned Single Judge holding that the list stood expired in terms of Rule 274(1)(ii) of 1996 Rules is not at all legally sustainable.
(ii) Since 301 posts were available for consideration, the meritorious appellants were entitled for consideration against available vacancies. There was no bar in the scheme of 1996 Rules that vacancies more than advertised could not be filled in.
(iii) Learned Single Judge erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the select list was itself prepared by the State Government after taking decision on September 15, 1999, whereby the Government finally rectified its mistake and arrived at the conclusion that the select list will be prepared in terms of circular dated July 24,1995, which lay down the criteria for determination of merit. When the select list was drawn in the month of September, 1999, the appellants approached the High Court before expiry of life time of select list. Since the select list was in operation during pendency of writ petitions, the findings of learned Single Judge is not legally sustainable.
13. Per contra, learned Government Advocate urged that the State Government vide Order No. 4254 dated December 16, 1999 took decision to appoint MMS and DKS after giving them relaxation under Rule 296 of 1996 Rules. According to learned Government Advocate since the appointment of MMS and DKS was not based on merit, therefore learned Single Judge has rightly set aside their appointment.
14. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record.
15. An additional affidavit has been filed by appellant DKS, which reads as under:--
(i) That the present matter pertains to appointment by direct recruitment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. Earlier the said post was required to be filled on the basis of performance in Secondary Examination. On 20.7.1996 the State Government took a policy decision prescribing performance in senior secondary examination as criteria for selection. Even the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules. 1996 prescribe criteria of senior secondary under Rule 226. Accordingly a decision was taken by the State Government to finalise selection on the basis of performance in senior secondary examination.
(ii) That the decision so taken by the State Government was challenged vide SBCWP No. 147/1997 Radhey Shyam Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. Which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated November 6, 1997 directing Government to hold selection on the basis of secondary examination. Special appeal was filed against the said judgment by the present appellants and the same was registered as SAW No. 51/1998 Dharmendra Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. The State Government also filed a special appeal registered as SAW No. 100/1998 State of Rajasthan v. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma and Anr. While the special appeals were pending and this Hon'ble Court was seized with the issue counsel for the respondents sought to withdraw the writ petition itself. Considering the opposition by the counsel for the appellant the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by order dated 10.9.1999 permitted the writ petition to be withdrawn on the ground that with the withdrawal of the writ petition the judgment under appeal would itself stand nullified. Thus challenge to the application of criteria of senior secondary stood negated and the matter attained finality.
(iii) That despite nullification of judgment dated 6.11.1997 the Government took a somersault and proceeded to hold selection on the basis of performance in secondary examination. Aggrieved thereby the present appellants along with similarly situated persons filed a writ petition which was registered as SBCWP No. 1771/1999 Madan Mohan Sharma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. Notices of the writ petition were served upon the respondents on 4.10.1999. Upon being confronted with the legal issues raised therein the State Government constituted a committee for examining the whole matter. The committee so constituted proposed four persons namely:--
a) Dr. C.P. Joshi, Minister, Panchayati Raj Vibhag;
b) Shri Manohar Kant, Director Panchayati Raj Vibhag;
c) Shri Mohan Swaroop Sharma, CEO, Zila Parishad Sawai Madhopur;
d) Shri Ashok Singh, Deputy Legal Remembrancer, Panchayati Raj Vighag.
The Committee so constituted summoned the entire relevant record regarding the selection. Upon scrutiny of the relevant record the committee considered marks secured by appellants and found that appellants were entitled to be selected since their merit was higher. Since persons had been appointed on the basis of secondary examinations criteria therefore in order to redress the hardship caused to the present appellants and other similarly situated persons a decision was taken to appoint appellants and other similarly situated persons against available vacancies subject to an affidavit being given by the appellants that they would withdraw their pending writ petitions. Since the appellants basic anxiety was to secure the livelihood and not to remain bogged down in litigation they gave an affidavit to this effect and accordingly orders were issued on 6.1.2000 and 11.1.2000 appointing the appellants on the post of Teacher Gr.III.
(iv) That at this juncture a bunch of writ petitions came to be filed before this Hon'ble Court by the respondents. In nutshell the contention raised in the writ petitions so filed was to the effect that selection was required to be made on the basis of performance in secondary examination and going by that criteria the petitioners had a higher merit as compared to the present appellants and since the present appellants had been appointed therefore the petitioners also should be appointed. Significantly the appointment orders dated 6.1.2000 and 11,1,2000 were neither placed on record nor specifically challenged.
(v) That since appointment orders dated 6.1.2000 and 11.1.2000 were only in respect of two persons therefore other similarly situated persons who along with the present appellants had filed aforementioned special appeal and subsequently a writ petition contending that selection be made on the basis of senior secondary qualification filed another writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being DBCWP 5172/2000 Rakesh Chand Jain and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 29.8.2002 whereby a direction in the form of mandamus was given to the Government to implement the decision taken by the Department in respect of those persons also. Accordingly the State Government in compliance of the said judgment dated 29.8.2000 appointed the aforementioned writ petitioners whose case is similarly situated qua present appellants. At this juncture in the light of the appointments so given to the aforementioned similarly situated persons more writ petition came to be filed by persons seeking appointment on the basis of secondary examinations. On such writ petition being SBCWP No. 5172/2000 Rakesh Chand Jain and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court vide his judgment dated 29.8.2002 without disturbing the appointment given to persons similarly situated qua appellants.
(vi) That as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Phillip v. P. Narain Reddy (1998) 3 SCC (Supp) 438, rule empowering Government to act in a just and equitable manner to rectify hardship and injustice is enforceable and justifiable. In the instant case too the State Government upon realizing that the appellants had been subjected to injustice and hardship decided to act in a just and equitable manner by providing appointment to the appellants against available vacancies.
(vii) That consequent to the decision so taken by the State Government for removing the injustice caused to the appellants by providing them appointment as Teacher Gr.III the appellants have been earning their livelihood by serving as Teacher Gr.III for nearly six years. Depriving them of the said employment would not only ruin their family but would also caused perpetuation of injustice which was earlier heaped on the appellants overlooking the performance in senior secondary examination when selections were made on the basis of secondary examination.
16. On behalf of the State Government, the Officer Incharge of the case Mr. Bhim Singh filed counter affidavit to the following effect:-
(i) That with regard to the contents of para 2 of the additional affidavit, it is not disputed that the present matter pertains to appointment by direct recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade III. It is also not disputed that the said posts were earlier required to be filled on the basis of performance in secondary examination. It is further not disputed that on 20 July, 1996 the State Government took a policy decision prescribing performance in senior secondary examination as criteria for selection and made an amendment in Rule 296 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 and changed the criteria of Secondary to Higher Secondary or Senior Secondary. But it is pertinent to mention here that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1722/2000 Renu Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and in other similar writ petitions this Honourable Court after considering the fact that the writ petition No. 147/1997 Radhey Shyam Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. was filed before this Honourable Court and selection process could not be finalised. The said said writ petition was decided by this Honourable Court vide judgment and order dated 6 November, 1997 issuing direction to prepare the merit list in accordance with the circular dated 24 July 1995, The matter were agitated before the Division Bench of this Honourable Court wherein the writ petition itself was allowed to withdrawn as the Government had arrived at the conclusion that the merit list was to be prepared as per the criteria fixed by the circular dated 24 July 1995. When litigation came to an end a select list was prepared in March 1998 but it was not given effect for a period at one and half years and another select list was prepared in September 1999. It is also pertinent to mention here that in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1722/2000 Renu Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others similar writ petitions this Honourable Court held that the appointment of Dharmendra Kumar Sharma and Madan Mohan were appointed ignoring the claim of hundred of candidates who stood higher to Dharmendra Kumar Sharma and Madan Mohan and quashed the appointment of both the persons and also struck down the amended provisions of Rule 296 being ultra vires and unconstitutional conferring unbridled power upon Executive.
(ii) That with regard to the contents of para 3 of the additional affidavit it is not disputed. The detailed reply has been given in the para 2 of the counter affidavit which may be treated as part and parcel of this para.
(iii) That the contents of para 4 of the affidavit are not correctly set out by the appellant and are denied in the manner as stated by the appellant. It is wrong to say that despite nullification of judgment dated 6 November 1997, the government took a somersault and proceed to hold selection on the basis of performance in secondary examination. In fact the government has taken the decision to select the candidates as per circular dated 24 July 1995, which was just legal and proper.
As per averments made by the appellant in this para that the committee so constituted summoned the entire relevant record regarding the selection process, but it is very surprising that the committee has only considered the candidature of Shri Dharmendra Kumar and Madan Mohan on the basis of marks obtained in Higher Secondary and Senior Secondary.
(iv) That the contents of para 5 of the additional affidavit are admitted only to the extent that writ petitions were filed by the petitioners before this Honourable Court.
(v) The contents of para 6 of the additional affidavit are not disputed as the averments are pertaining to the facts of filing of some writ petitions.
(vi) That with regard to para 7 of the additional affidavit it is humbly submitted that case law cited by the appellant in this para are not applicable in the case of the appellant.
(vii) That the contents of para 8 of the additional affidavit are not correctly set out by the petitioner and are denied in the manner as stated by the petitioner.
17. Learned Counsel for MMS and DKS canvassed that they have been earning their livelihood by serving as Teacher Gr. III for nearly six years and depriving them of the said employment would not only ruin their family but would also cause perpetuation of injustice which was earlier heaped on the appellants overlooking the performance in senior secondary examination when selections were made on the basis of secondary examination. Reliance is placed on Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lai , wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated thus:--
(Para 12) We are greatly disturbed by the insensitivity reflected in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in a case where judicial mind would be tempted to utilize all possible legal measures to impart justice to a man mutilated so outrageously by his cruel destiny. The High Court non-situated him in exercise of a supervisory and extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution. Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it vide State of U.P. v. District Judge, Unnao . The very purpose of such constitutional powers conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The lookout of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the by-product of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law.
18. Another contention that has been urged is that where the writ petition is filed against certain order and copy of that order was not filed, the said order could not have been set aside. Reliance is placed on Surinder Singh v. Central Government , wherein it was held that:--
Whenever an order of Govt. or some authority is impugned before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the copy of the order must be produced before it. In the absence of the impugned order it would not be possible to ascertain the reasons which may have impelled the authority to pass the order. It is therefore improper to quash an order which is not produced before the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.
19. It is next contended that after having served for nearly six years Teacher Grade III MMS and DKS have become overage and if they are removed from services their whole life may be ruined. Since they were appointed by the Committee constituted by the State Government and there was no fault of their own they could not be rendered remedyless. Reliance is placed on All India Equitable Forum v. State of Raj. DB Civil Writ Petition No. 4590/2003, decided on April 19, 2004 = RLW 2Q04 (4) Raj. 2455.
20. Having closely weighed the material on record we notice that the appeal of MMS and DKS was admitted on March 1, 2001 and by an interim order the State Government was restrained from terminating their services. The interim order was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on May 30, 2002. Indisputably MMS and DKS have continuously served as Teacher Grade III for a period of about six years by now.
21. We ourselves have scanned Rule 296 of 1996 Rules and we find that it gives unfettered powers to the Executive to relax the eligibility criteria including the qualification, age and experience. It enables the Executive to make appointment by pick and choose of the candidates from the bottom of merit list ignoring the claim of large number of candidates over and above them. In our opinion, the said rule was rightly declared ultra vires and unconstitutional by the learned Single Judge. Since the appointment of MMS and DKS was made under the discretionary power provided by Rule 296, in our opinion, it was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge.
22. Coming to the case of meritorious appellants we find that the select list was prepared in the month of September, 1999 and before, expiry of the period of one year the appellants approached the High Court. In State of U.P. v. Ram Swaroop , their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated thus:--
(Para 10) ...we find that the select list was finalised in the month of November, 1996 and the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the month of October, 1997 i.e., before expiry of one year from the date of list. Merely because a period of one year has elapsed during pendency of litigation we cannot decline to grant the relief to which respondent has been found entitled by the High Court....
23. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that meritorious appellants, whose names found place in the select list, were entitled to be considered for giving appointment on the vacant posts of Teacher Grade III in pursuance to advertisement No. 1/96. By quashing of the appointment of MMS and DKS, the claim of meritorious appellants did not vanish.
24. That takes us to the question - Should we overlook the fact that MMS and DKS have continuously served as Teacher Grade III for a period of nearly six years and have become overage by now? The answer shall be in negative. We cannot reflect insensitivity by rendering them remedyless. Even after learned Single Judge quashed the appointment of MMS and DKS, the Division Bench allowed them to continue on the post of Teacher Grade III. It is a settled legal proposition that nobody should suffer on account of the act of the Court, (Actus Curiae Niminem Grave Bit) The Apex Court in Roshan deen v. Preeti Lal (supra), indicated that the lookout of the High Court is not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of erroneous interpretation of law.
25. It is contended before us that even after striking down Rule 296, the State Government filled the posts of Teacher Grade III by giving relaxation under the said Rule and still the posts are lying vacant. We therefore in the interest of justice, deem it appropriate to constitute a Fact Finding Committee to examine the various aspects of the matter.
26. As a result of the above discussion, we dispose of the instant appeals in the following terms:--
(i) We direct the State Government to forthwith constitute a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to examine as to whether vacancies of Teacher Grade III pursuant to advertisement No. 1/96 still exist and whether after the judgment dated February 12, 2001 of learned Single Judge any appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III was given by giving relaxation under Rule 296 of 1996 Rules.
(ii) Any appointment so given under Rule 296, which was struck down, shall be subject to enquiry.
(iii) The meritorious persons included in the select list drawn in pursuance of advertisement No. 1/96 shall be considered for appointment on the basis of their merit against the vacant posts of Teacher Grade HI.
(iv) The appellants MMS and DKS (Appeal No. 76/2001) who have served nearly six years as Teacher Grade III and have become over age by now, shall be reconsidered on the basis of their merit in secondary examination and till final decision is arrived at, they shall be allowed to work on the post of Teacher Grade III and their services shall not be terminated,
(v) There shall not be any order as to costs.