The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments made on the basis of an arbitrary and illegal selection process are void, and the State Government has no power to interfere with the selections made by the District Establishment Committee (D.E.C.).

1. - These six writ petitions have been heard together by consent of all concerned. Since a very short point is involved in them, they are being disposed of at the admission stage, itself. Since the questions of facts and law involved in each one of them are identical, I am disposing them by a common order.

2. Reply to show cause notice was filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1209/1991-Ishwar Singh and Ors. v. State and Ors. Replies in other cases have not been filed. Reply filed in S.B. Civil writ Petition No. 1209/1991 has been adopted by the learned Government Advocate in all the cases and learned Counsel for petitioners in all these writ petitions agree that reply filed in Ishwar Singh's case may be taken as reply in the other writ petitions too. Hence, the reply in Ishwar Singh's case has been taken as representative reply to all the writ petitions. For this very reason, I need not state the pleas raised in all the writ petitions, and a brief delineation of the averments of the petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1209/1991 may be taken as representative pleadings in all other cases.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the District Establishment Committee, Jalore, hereinafter the D.E.C., issued advertisement for filling up vacancies of teachers Grade III, existing in the Upper Primary Schools under its jurisdiction. The petitioners, who were eligible to be appointed and possessed requisite qualifications, duly applied and were selected at an interview held between 13.2.1991 and 21.2.1991. The Collector of Jalore, who is an ex-officio member of the D.E.C. was duly invited to attend the interview, but he could not participate in the selections. The Collector, Jalore was not happy with these selections and he issued a letter restraining Zila Parishad, Jalore after obtaining legal advice ignored the aforesaid letter of the Collector and proceeded to make appointments to the posts of 3rd grade teachers under the various schools under its jurisdiction. Various appointment letters were issued by the Chief Executive Officer cum Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jalore to the selected candidates on 5.3.1991. Annexures 1 and 2 are some of the appointment letters so issued by the Chief Executive Officer cum Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jalore. The case of the petitioners is that they joined duties in pursuance of such appointment letters but subsequently under direction of the Collector, the services of various appointees were terminated and they were relieved of their respective charges Annexures 6, 7 and 8 were some such directions. Annexure 5 is the letter by which services of one of the petitioners were terminated. The case of the petitioners is that termination of their services in an arbitrary manner, without notice to them, was bad in law and such termination may be quashed and petitioners be allowed to continue in service.

4. The case of the contesting respondents is that the D.E.C. committed grave and serious illegalities and irregularities in making the impugned selections. The Collector brought the various irregularities and illegalities to the notice of the State Government and there upon the Government stayed the appointments made in pursuance of such selections. Yet, the Zila Parishad proceeded to make impugned appointments. It was in these circumstances that appointments were stayed and the incumbents were ordered to be relieved. It pleaded that the Collector and the State Government acted within their powers in the matter. It is alleged that the entire selection was malafide and suffered from nepotism and favouritism. Various contentions have been raised in this regard. It has been alleged that due to illegalities and irregularities committed during the selection, meritorious and deserving candidates had been left out and favoured candidates were given undue advantage. It was interalia pleaded "It seems that the petitioners are in leage(sic) with the respondent No. 2 and its functionaries, maneuvered farce s