1. - This order shall govern disposal of other connected appeals also, as common questions of law are involved in all of them. Thus, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Even though the case has a long and chequered history but at this juncture, it is not necessary to go into the facts of the case in greater details. However, thumbnail sketch of the facts of the case is as under:

(i) State of Rajasthan had issued a notification dated 15.9.1992, advertising 59 vacancies to be filled up for the post of Ayurveda Chikitsak. The advertisement contained a note that the post could either be increased or even be decreased as per requirement.

(ii) The said vacancies were required to be filled up in exercise of the powers under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules. 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rules'), which contemplates for urgent temporary appointments. The Rule itself stipulates that the candidate(s) given appointment against the said rule would be in employment only for a period of one year.

(iii) Appellants had applied for the said post. According to them. their names had appeared in the select list. State, initially, had given appointments to sixty-six candidates,. Later on, eleven more candidates were given appointments, on urgent temporary basis. By the end of the year 1993, fourteen more candidates were given appointments, on account of different judgments having been passed by this Court. Admittedly, appointments far exceeded the advertised vacancies.

3. It was contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that even though more than hundred vacancies became available till the end of the year 1992 and necessary sanction was also accorded to fill up the same, yet the vacancies were not filled up by those candidates whose names had appeared in the select list. It was, therefore, contended by appellants that select list was partially operated by the State and was closed abruptly, without there being any plausible reason in this regard. Some of the candidates were denied appointments even though their names had appeared in the select list. Therefore, they were constrained to approach the Writ Court.

4. Initially, the writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge. On review being filed by the unsuccessful petitioners, the review petition was allowed by learned Single Judge, State preferred writ appeals before Division Bench against the said order of learned Single Judge allowing the review petition and giving directions to the respondent-State. The Division Bench then allowed the writ appeal filed by the State and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge to decide it on merits, in accordance with law. After remand before learned Single Judge, the matter was heard once again and the writ petitions were dis- missed.

5. This order passed by Single Bench, after remand, was subject matter of challenge before Division Bench, in which a detailed order came to be passed by Division Bench on 29.5.2002. In concluding para of the said judgment of Division Bench dated 29.5.2002.. following directions have been given-

"For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1047/94 on 25.3.1994 and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 57/94 on 18.12.2000 are set aside. The State Government is directed to consider the cases of the appellants and given them appointments if they are found otherwise eligible for giving appointment under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1973. This exercise shall be done by the State Government within a period of one month from the placement of this order before the authority concerned. There shall be no order as to costs.

Judge
Judge"

6. State Government, feeling aggrieved by the said order, took up the matter to the Supreme Court, by filing special leave petitions, matter had come up before the Supreme Court on 28.7.2003 and the followi