The Appointing Authority has a duty under Rule 7A of the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986, to determine the vacancies every year and make recruitment through the Public Service Commission. Failure to discharge this duty results in the continuation of ad hocism and hardship to the petitioners, who can be allowed to continue in service till regularly recruited candidates became available.

1. - This writ petition and other writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule annexed with the judgment involve a common question of law and fact. Therefore, they are disposed of by the common order.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the facts given in the case of Mrs. Anita Kothari (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1908/89) are taken into consideration from convenient disposal of all the writ petitions.

3. Petitioner is post-graduate in English. She entered the Service of the Government of Rajasthan as Lecturer in English in the year 1982. At the relevant time the Rules were in force are known as Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1971. Petitioner continued on the post of lecturer and her order was revived every year after academic session and she continued till she was relieved in the year 1989. She filed the present writ petition that she had been in service for more than 7 years and Public Service Commission has not advertised the post. She further submitted that she had to face the ordeal of appearing before the temporary selection committee every year for her recruitment. Meanwhile the new Rules known as Rajasthan Education (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to Rules of 1986) were promulgated, superseding earlier Rules of 1971. The validity of provision of these Rules of 1986 were challenged in these writ petitions, but Mr. Masheshwari and Mr. Mridul learned counsel for the petitioner have submitted that they don't propose to challenge the validity of these Rules.

4. The principal submission of the learned counsel is that notwithstanding that there are number of posts existing, the Public Service Commission has not been able to make a regular recruitment and the ad hocism is going on for a pretty long time. Learned counsel submitted that it has raised a human problem that some lecturers who had remained in service for 7 and 8 years may not get even a fresh temporary appointment in the ensuing academic session. This kind of uncertainty is creating a deplorable condition in the whole lot. Learned counsel submitted that at least till the selected candidates are not made available by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission till that time, incumbents should be allowed to continue. In this connection, learned counsel has invited our attention to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court (which we will refer hereinafter).

5. Mr. Mridul and Mr. Maheshwari submitted that on account of giving the employment to these teachers upto academic session, these teachers are even deprived the salary of the summer vacation. Learned counsel submitted that this is not but exploiting the helplessness of these teachers. In this connection, our attention was invited to Rattan Lal and others etc. etc. v. State of Haryana and others ( AIR 1987 Supreme Court 478), where this practice was deprecated. It was observed :

"We strongly deprecate the policy of the State Government under which 'ad hoc' teachers are denied the salary and allowances for the period of the summer vacation by resorting to the fictional breaks of the type referred to above. These 'ad hoc' teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long as they hold the office under this order. Those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave shall also be granted such leave in accordance with the rules."
This judgment was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Chanda Taamboly v. The Panchayat Samiti Mandal, (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2795/87) decided on June 15, 1986. In this case also a question of termination of the ad hoc teachers in Panchayat came up for consideration and this Court directed as under :

"In the result, all these writ petitions are allowed and we directed that all the petitioners whose services have been terminated shall be entitled to one month's salary in the minimum pay scale admissible to the cadre with