The main legal point established in the judgment is that there was no guarantee of employment based on batchwise merit and no legitimate expectation of being governed by the Rules in force at the time of training. The revocation of the order dated 16.11.89 and the change in recruitment procedure were found to be in accordance with the Rules.

1. - These appeals raise common point and were therefore heard together and are being decided together.

2. The appellants are desirous of being appointed to the post of Junior Ayurved Nurse/Compounder in the Department of Ayurved of the State of Rajasthan. They claim to be eligible for being considered as according to them, they held qualifications prescribed for the post. According to the appellants, till April, 1999, the procedure followed for recruitment to the post of junior Ayurved Nurse/Compounder was governed by an order issued by the Medical and,Health Department of the State of Rajasthan on 16.11.89. According to the order dated 16.11.89, the merit list of the candidates found suitable for appointment was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the training examination batchwise and merit list was to be prepared on the basis of chronological batchwise seniority. All earlier selections were made by following this method. Howe er, on 19.4.99, the State Government revoked the order dated 16.11.89 and 15r a separate order also directed that the vacant posts be filled in in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (in short 'the Rules'). Consequently,Sn employment notice for filling in 200 posts was issued on 24.4.1999.

3. The effect of revocation of the order dated 16.11.89 and directing recruitment in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules was that those who were senior according to the batchwise seniority were relegated to lower position if the candidate in the subsequent batch had higher marks in the training examination than the marks obtained by them. In other words, preparation of merit list on the basis of marks obtained in the training examination irrespective of the year of passing of batch of the candidate came in the way of selection of the candidates who would have been selected on the basis of batchwise seniority if the order dated 16.11.89 had not been revoked. The appellants therefore, contend that the revocation of the order dated 16.11.89 is prejudicial to their interest and is illegal and arbitrary.

4. The State of Rajasthan, on the other hand, contends that the action was taken strictly in accordance with the Rules and nobody can be said to be aggrieved by strict compliance of the Rules. It is also contended that the State Government has authority to change the Rules and no grievance can be made against such a change of procedure. It was also contended on behalf of the State of Rajasthan that the order dated 16.11.89 was found to be against the Rules and was, therefore, recalled.

5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions finding no merit therein. Learned Single Judge upheld the contention that the order dated 16.11.89 was dehors the Rules and therefore, no grievance could be made if that order was recalled. Learned Single Judge also observed that there was no provision, whatsoever in the Rules requiring preparation of the merit list on the basis of batchwise merit. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, these appeals have been filed.

6. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the order dated 16.11.89 was a valid and reasonable order which could not have been said to be against the Rules. The consideration of batchwise merit provided by the order was based on a reasonable classification and it could not be said that the order dated 16.11.1989 was arbitrary or illegal. It was further contended that the order dated 16.11.89 held out the promise to those who underwent training on the basis that later on they would be employed on the basis of their batchwise merit and one batch of candidates passing the training will not be required to compete with the candidates from any other batch. According to the appellants, the change of the Rules and revocation of the order dated 16.11.89 abruptly would be hit by the principles of promissory estoppel. It was also conten