JUDGMENT :

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. "Whether the judgment rendered by a learned Judge of this Court, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein, who are the affected parties and whose appointments have been set aside, is liable to be sustained in view of violation of the fundamental rule of audi alteram partem?"

"Whether the course pursued by the learned single Judge in taking an independent decision, contrary to the finding rendered by a Division Bench of this Court holding that the Rules (under challenge before the learned single Judge) were 'intra vires' and valid in all respects and that no interference was possible with the 'Advertisement' impugned in the writ petition, correct and sustainable?

"Whether the learned single Judge, while rendering the verdict under challenge, has referred to all the relevant provisions of law, before arriving at the conclusion?"

"Whether such a course is permissible in law, with reference to the 'principles of judicial discipline'?"

These are some of the important points to be considered in these matters. We have raised these questions, because the 'Order of Reference' dated 22.03.2012 passed by the Division Bench does not specifically refer to any particular question, nor it mentions the terms of reference.

2. The sequence and events shows that the selection and appointment to the post of Headmaster in Primary Schools was the subject matter of dispute/challenge in the various writ petitions filed before this Hon'ble Court. As a matter of fact, Advertisements were issued for filling up the posts of Shiksha Karmies, Grade-I, II and III way back in the year 2010, which was a District-wise appointment and steps were being pursued accordingly. While so, the terminology mentioned in the Advertisement, that it was to be by 'Promotion' was sought to be corrected by the Director of Public Instructions, as per the relevant proceedings dated 20/09/2010 issued to all the District Education Officers in the State, to have it taken as 'Direct Recruitment', by way of a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination to fill up the posts. It was accordingly, that further steps were pursued by the District Education Officers in this regard.

3. It is to be noted in this context that, the said Advertisements and the Rules on the basis of which such Advertisements were issued were sought to be challenged by some of the aspirants by filing writ petitions before this Court. The challenge against the validity of the Rules and the Advertisements was repelled and a Division Bench of this Court, as per judgment dated 25.10.2010 in WPS No. 6055/2010. It was held that appointment to the posts in question, as per the relevant rules; in particular Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Non-Gazetted Class III Education Service (School Level Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules, 2008), read with Schedule-II, was never by 'Promotion' but by way of 'Direct Recruitment'. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed and the matter ended up there.

4. Pursuant to the Advertisements issued and the further steps taken, the selection was finalized; based on which the selected Shiksha Karmies were required to resign from the posts held by them as per the instructions given by the Competent Authority, so as to enable them to join the posts of 'Headmaster'. The selected persons concerned tendered their resignation, wherever it was necessary, and joined the posts along with other selected persons and have been continuing in service for nearly a decade. However, some candidates, who either were not qualified or who could not come out successful in the process of selection, sought to challenge the process, by questioning the validity of the Rules and the Advertisements. These matters were heard elaborately by the learned single Judge and during the course of hearing, the factum of having res