The main legal point established in the judgment is that executive instructions cannot amend or supersede statutory rules, and appointments made dehors the rules violate public policy and are void.

Headnote:
Executive Instructions - Appointment Dispute - Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 - Rule 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 265, 270, 274, 284, 296 - The court discussed the validity of executive instructions in overriding statutory rules, the extension of select list, and the legality of appointments made dehors the statutory rules. The judgment highlighted key legal provisions such as the binding nature of rules and regulations on authorities, the duty to observe rules of natural justice, and the fundamental right to equal opportunity in employment.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over appointments for Teachers Grade III in Rajasthan, where the State Government issued an order directing appointments contrary to the statutory rules. The select list's life was extended, and appointments were made dehors the statutory rules, leading to multiple legal challenges.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State Government had exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order and had violated the statutory provisions. It held that the extension of the select list and the appointments made dehors the rules were illegal and violative of the constitutional provisions.
Issues: The substantial questions raised included the validity of executive instructions overriding statutory rules, the extension of select list, the rights of candidates for being considered for appointment, and the legality of appointments made dehors the statutory rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the binding nature of rules and regulations on authorities, the duty to observe rules of natural justice, and the fundamental right to equal opportunity in employment. It held that appointments made dehors the rules violate public policy and are void.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to re-examine the selection process and pass appropriate orders in line with the judgment. It also directed the respondents to terminate the services of persons appointed under the impugned order and to provide an opportunity of hearing to affected persons.

JUDGMENT

1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.11.1999 (Annx. 8) passed by the Government issuing directions to make appointments as per the directions contained therein. The said impugned order dated 25.11.1999 has also been challenged by other petitioners by way of filing separate writ petitions. Some petitions have been filed challenging the discriminatory attitude of the respondents while implementing the order dated 25.11.1999. Particulars of all petitions have been furnished in the Schedule annexed to this judgment. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, all the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment taking the instant Petition as the leading case.'

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent No. 3 advertised 222 posts of Teachers Grade III, vide Advertisement dated 15.6.1998 (Annx. 1), inviting applications from the eligible candidates. Posts had to be filled up as per the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, "the Rules, 1996"). The advertisement itself lays down the eligibility of candidates including educational qualification, age etc. Certain Guidelines had also been issued in the Circular dated 10.6.1998 (Annx. 2) for filling up the said posts. The said Guidelines do not provide for any appointment/preference to any person possessing the vocational qualification or to those persons who had already worked with State on contractual basis. On the contrary, the respondents issued a Circular dated 19.8.1998 (Annx. 2-A) clarifying that the persons possessing the vocational qualification shall not be considered as eligible for the posts. Petitioner as well as other eligible candidates applied for the post and interviews were held on 29/30 June, 1998. A select list was published, in which petitioner's name appeared at Serial No. 212. As per the advertisement and as per the Statutory Rules, the selection list had to expire on 30.6.1999. The State Government, vide order dated 29.6.1999 (Annx. 6) extended the life of the select list till new advertisement is issued. Ignoring the claim of the petitioner, appointments are being offered to the persons who had worked earlier on contract basis and/or possessed the Vocational qualification as per the order dated 25.11.1999 (Annx. 8) as is evident from the letter of the respondents dated 23.2.2000 (Annx. 9). Hence this petition.

3. A large number of substantial questions have been raised by the petitioner in this petition, inter alia:

(i) Whether executive instructions can over-ride the Statutory Rules and provide for appointment contrary to the same;

(ii) If the Statute itself fixes the life of the select list, whether it can be extended by issuing an executive order till the vacancies are advertised in future;

(iii) Whether such an extension of select list for indefinite period violates the rights of those persons for being considered for appointment, who attained eligibility subsequent to the advertisement dated 15.6.1998;

(iv) Whether the persons, who had earlier worked on contract basis or possessed vocational qualification, can be given preference over other candidates possessing the eligibility as per the Statutory Rules; and

(v) What can be the fate of appointments if made dehors the Statutory Rules.

4. Respondents have filed reply admitting the averments/ allegations made in the petition. The salient features, as per the reply, are that the vacancies were increased from 222 to 310 vide order dated 13.10.1998. Two hundred candidates were issued appointment letters as per the eligibility provided under the advertisement and as per the Statutory Rules. The preference to the persons who had earlier worked on contract basis of possessed vocational qualification, was given on the basis of the Government Order dated 25.11.1999, which has been passed in pursuance of the Policy Decision taken by the State Government.

5. Before entering into the merit of