The main legal point established in the judgment is that exemption from the screening test for advertised posts does not automatically entitle individuals to the regularisation of their temporary services. Regularisation can only occur through the process of regular selection through direct recruitment as provided for under the rules.

1. These six special appeals since have arisen out of common judgment dated 15.9.1995 of the learned Single Judge in three writ petitions having been filed by the doctors, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge while allowing the doctors' writ petition Nos. 446/94, 607/94, & 954/94 directed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "PSC") to interview the writ petitioners also for the advertised posts without requiring them to go through the screening test.

2. These special appeals are divided in two sets. First three appeals (Nos. 777/95, 778/95 & 779/95) have been filed by the PSC for setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereas by second set of appeals (Nos. 679/95, 680/95 & 775/95) the doctors (who were petitioners in their a ore said writ petitions) have sought for modification of the impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge by directing respondents (State of Rajasthan & PSC) to regularise the services of doctors (petitioners) on the post of Assistant Professors by assessing their service records/ACRs, experience etc. as a separate block from the date of their initial appointments on adhoc basis with all consequential benefits.

3. Relevant facts and circumstances in which these appeals have arisen are briefly stated. Admittedly it is the case on behalf of the writ petitioners (for short the doctors) as is evident from their appointment order that on recommendation of the Central Selection Committee, these doctors were a ppointed on urgent/temporary basis in accordance with proviso to Rule 30(1) of Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short Rules, 1962) as Lecturers initially for a period upto 28.2.91 from the date they took over the charge of post at the respective places of their postings or till the regularly selected persons are made available by the RPSC whichever is earlier and their appointments were subject to terms and conditions laid down in the Rules, 1962 or orders issued by the Government from time to time. Similarly it is also not in dispute that these doctors continued in service after their initial appointments till they approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions out of which these appeals arise.

4. The dispute arose when an advertisement came to be issued on 10.12.1993 by the State Government for filling up posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects for regular selection by direct recruitment without giving any preference or weightage to the existing temporary or adhoc doctors like the writ petitioners. However, admittedly they were not denied to apply for these posts under advertisement (supra). Hence these adhoc/temporary doctros who were already in service challenged the advertisement, ibid, by way of aforesaid writ petitions besides claiming regularisation of their services on the basis of assessment of their performance, service record and experience etc. In nut shell, the crux of their grievance was that since they had already been working in service, they should be given benefit of their past services before making appointments on regular selection. Another limb of their grievance was that similar relief should also be granted as has been done in other writ petitions (Nos. 5424/90 & 5425/90) which were earlier filed by Dr. Rajendra Surekha & Dr. Sudhir Bhandari, challenging filling up of the posts of Assistant Professor (General Medicine) on the ground that the in-service candidates should not be directed to face process of fresh recruitment and their services should be regularised. These petitions of Dr. Surekha & Dr. Bhandari, infact, were dismissed by judgment dated 11.4.94 as regards claim of regularisation of their service as a result of their past performance as Assistant Professors.

5. Though in the present petitions out of which these appeals arise, the reliefs were sought for:-(a) setting aside advertisement dated 10.12