1.The petitioners, working as Lecturers (School Education) with the Respondent State have preferred the present writ petitions, with the following prayers:-

“(a) To consider the candidature of suitable and eligible candidates both from the lecturer (School Education) and Headmaster (Secondary School) by strictly operating the ratio of 67:33 against the available 2843 vacancies for the year 2017-18.

(b) That the methodology adopted by the respondents in reserving the vacancies on the basis of ratio against the total sanctioned posts of Principal may kindly be declared illegal.

(c) That a direction be issued to the respondents that after considering the candidature of the eligible candidates against the available vacancies of 2843 the eligible candidates may be promoted with all the consequential benefits.”

2. Shorn of unwarranted narration, the facts appertain for deciding the present controversy are that the petitioners are School Lecturers, whose services are governed by the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1970’).

3. They are all aspirants for promotion to the post of Principal, which post is meant to be filled in 100% by promotion, for which feeder posts were Head Masters and School Lecturers in equal proportion, till the amendment brought into effect by the Notification dated 25.03.2015, known as Rajasthan Educational Service (Amendment) Rules, 2015. As the State Government decided to upgrade all Secondary Schools to Senior Secondary Schools, it became imperative for the State to amend Column No.3 of the relevant part of the Schedule, changing quota of School Lecturer and Head Master from 50% each to 67% and 33% respectively.

4. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition contending inter alia that the Respondents, including the Department Promotion Committee, while selecting eligible candidates for 2843 posts of the Principals, have not adhered to the quota or ratio of 67% from School Lecturers of the total vacancies, as stipulated by the Notification dated 25.03.2015. This Court issued notices to the State and after considering its view point, on 05.05.2017, had passed the interim order in the following terms:-

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to convene DPC and consider candidature of the eligible incumbents in the ratio of 67 per cent from School Lecturers and 33 per cent from Head Masters of School Education against the total vacancy of 2843, in terms of the amendment brought in the Rules of 1970 vide notification dated 25.03.2015.”

5. These matters have come upon for consideration of the application seeking vacation of the interim orders, filed under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, however, looking to the fact that promotion of thousands of eligible candidates is at stake, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, these matters have been heard finally.

6. It may be added that a group of Head Masters have moved an application for impleadment, and after hearing the concerned counsels on 24th May, this Court, instead of impleading them as party-respondents, has permitted them to address the Court as intervenors. This fact could not be recorded in the proceedings/order sheets of this Court on that day, but nevertheless, all parties were ad idem that they be heard and, in terms of the observations made on that day, sufficient audience has been given to them.

7. Mr. M.R.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.S. Sandhu, Adv. and Mr. Hukum Singh, Adv. leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, navigated this Court, through various provisions of the Rules of 1970 and submitted that Rule 6 postulates the method of recruitment and as per the Schedule appended with the Rules, there is only one mode of recruitment i.e. p