Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Dr.Govind Narayan Purohit with the following prayers :-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that by an appropriate, writ order or direction :-

(i) rule 31 of the Rules of 1962 as reproduced above and rule 3(k) of the Rules of 1962 be declared as unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) or in the alternative, the non-petitioner be directed to determine the seniority of the petitioner while taking into consideration his services in pursuance of the order dated 20/22.4.1978 and to assign him appropriate place in the seniority list of lecturers of E.N.T. and to give all consequential benefits;

(iii) any other order/relief(s) which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed;

(iv) writ petition be allowed with cost.”

3. Since the petitioner had challenged the validity and vires of Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Medical (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short, referred to herein after as 'the Rules of 1962'), the matter was initially placed before the Division Bench but thereafter, during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the validity of an analogous Rule (Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building & Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973) was upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Jagdish Chandra. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.759/1984) by judgment dated 12.8.1988, whereafter this Court by order dated 4.12.1992 directed the writ petition to be listed before the Single Bench.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that there appears to be a typographical error in the order dated 4.12.1992 wherein it is mentioned that the validity of the Rule was struck down whereas the fact remains that the validity of the Rule was upheld by the Division Bench.

5. Be that as it may, the Single Bench vide order dated 30.7.1996 allowed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner and directed that the respondents shall give continuous seniority to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment and also grant him all consequential benefits arising thereof, after placing his name at the proper place of seniority in the seniority list.

6. The said judgment was challenged by filing a letters patent appeal. The Division Bench by its order dated 28.5.1997, set aside the aforesaid order and remanded the matter back to the Single Bench for fresh consideration giving liberty to the petitioner to file an amended writ petition after impleading all the persons likely to be affected by the decision of the writ petition as respondents.

7. It appears that while filing writ petition initially, the petitioner did not array as respondents, the persons who were likely to be affected upon the writ petition being allowed and the petitioner being granted seniority from an earlier date. After remand, an amended writ petition was filed by the petitioner impleading seven (7) other persons as respondents, who, as per the petitioner, were likely to be affected upon his prayer, for being placed higher in the seniority list, being accepted.

8. The case as set up in the instant writ petition is that after procuring the M.B.B.S. degree and post graduate specialisation in E.N.T. in the year 1977, the petitioner applied for being appointed as Lecturer upon a vacancy for the post of Lecturer being advertised by the Medical College, Jodhpur. The petitioner was invited for the interview scheduled to be held on 9.3.1978 and was declared successful, after being interviewed by Central Selection Committee, by an order of even date, which has been placed on record as Annex.2. Pur-suant to his selection, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter Annex.3 dated 20/22.4.1978 under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1962. The petitioner claims that he continued to work on the said post without any break in service.

9. In the meanti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document