Ad hoc appointees with 3+ years of service are exempt from the screening test for the post of Assistant Professors.

1. :- The ties of a common cause has prompted all the petitioners herein to file this writ petition which has been heard along with other similar writ petitions and, hence is being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners after going through a regular selection procedure were appointed as ad hoc temporary Doctors and were working in various medical colleges and Associated Group of Hospitals in the State of Rajasthan for the last more that three years. They are all duly qualified possessing post graduate degree in their respective subjects.

3. An advertisement dated 10th December, 1993 was thereafter issued by the State of Rajasthan for filling up the posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects on regular basis without giving any preference or weightage to the existing ad hoc Doctors like the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, who were working from before as ad hoc Assistant Professors filed these writ petitions challenging the advertisement by which the posts were sought to be filled up by direct recruitment and they sought a further direction to regularise their services making assessment of their performance, service record etc. They were aggrieved with the fact that as they were working from before, they should be given the benefit of their previous service while making appointments. Similar writ petitions were also filed by two other petitioners Dr. Rajendra Kumar Surekha and Dr. Sudhir Bhandaril, bearing SBCWP No.5424/1990 and 5424/1990 (sic) . The said petitioners had also challenged the filing up of posts of Assitant Professor (General Medicine) essentially on the ground that in-service candidates should not be directed to go through a process of fresh recruitment and their services should be regularised. The aforesaid two writ petitions, by order dated 11/4/1994, were dismissed in so far as their claim for regularisation of their service by virtue of their performance as Assistant Professors in the past in concerned. A concession, however, was made in their favour and a direction was given to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission that the candidates who have rendered service from before shall not be terminated and it was directed to interview the petitioners and other ad hoc appointees who have completed three years or more service without requiring them to appear in the screening test; instead they were allowed to face the interview for selection straightaway. Accordingly, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission was directed not to subject the candidates, meaning thereby the ad hoc appointees, to the process of screening, but they were directed to be interviewed without facing such screening test.

4. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court bearing D.B. Special Appeal No.533/1004 and 492/1994 whereby the learned Judges of the Division Bench confined the con- cession made by the learned Single Judge in regard to ad hoc appointees only in favour of the petitioners, Dr. Surekha and Dr. Bhandari. A further appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was then filed before the Supreme Court, where the Rajasthan Public Service Commission submitted that the con- cession of not going through the screening test could not have been made only in favour of Dr. Surekha and Dr. Bhandari and in the process also challenged that the concession made by the learned Single Judge regarding exemption of screening to all the ad hoc appointees was bad as per their grounds No. 3,4,5 and 6 of the Special Leave Petition wherein the Rajasthan Public Service Commission categorically urged that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench erred in holding that the Commission is not within its right to hold the screening test under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical Services Collegiate Branch Rules, 1962 and, therefore, contented that the learned Single Judge as well as the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench were not right in exempting the