The present batch of petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of termination of their services under Rule 23-A of Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR) 1951.

2. The question before this Court is whether petitioners/probationers working on the post of Constable, in Police can be removed from service during probation by invoking Rule 23-A of RSR by treating them temporary employee.

3. The grievance of all the petitioners is common and as such, these petitions are decided by a common order.

4. The facts of SBCWP No.13898/2016: Dinesh Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., are taken as a lead case.

5. The petitioner had participated in the selection process for the post of Constable (GD) in pursuance of advirtisement dt.14.07.2013 issued by the respondents. The petitioner after finding his name in the merit list, came to be appointed by order dt.19.01.2016 and he was put on probation for period of two years on the fixed salary of Rs.8910/- per month.

6. The petitioner was sent on training at ITBP, Panchkula Haryana on 12.02.2016. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that due to ailment of his father, he had to leave the training and he had moved an application dt.16.02.2016 for granting him leave for going to his home town.

7. The petitioner has submitted in his petition that on 11.03.2016 a notice was served to him for joining duties otherwise it was to be treated as misconduct and for which action was to be taken under Rule 86 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereafter referred as ‘Rules of 1951’). The said notice was given for unauthorized absence from duty.

8. The petitioner was served with another notice under Rule 86 of RSR dt.14.03.2016 asking him to join the duties otherwise, departmental enquiry was to be initiated against him.

9. The petitioner has submitted that notice dt.15.03.2016 under Rules 23-A of RSR came to be served by Deputy Police Commissioner (Police Headquarter), Jaipur where a direction was given to him to join duties within one month from the date of receipt of the notice, otherwise the services of the petitioner were to be terminated.

10. The petitioner has alleged that without waiting for joining time of 30 days w.e.f. 15.03.2016, impugned order dt.12.04.2016 came to be passed, terminating his services along with other 17 persons by invoking powers under Rule 23-A of RSR.

11. The petitioner has submitted in his petition that realising mistake of issuing illegal order, the respondents cancalled the order dt.12.04.2016 and on the very next date, the order dt.13.04.2016 was issued cancelling the order issued under Rule 23-A of RSR.

12. The petitioner has submitted that after order dt.12.04.2016 being passed, he joined his duty at training camp on 14.04.2016 and on 18.04.2016 he was issued movement order relegating him to the office of Superintendent of Police, Jaipur. The petitioner has alleged that he joined his duty before the Deputy Commissioner, Jaipur on 20.04.2016 and he started reporting for duties there.

13. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents by invoking power under Rule 23-A(1)(b) of RSR issued the impugned termination order dt.10.06.2016 on the ground that the petitioner remained willful absent for 65 days. The petitioner is said to have made representation to the higher authorities along with medical documents in support of his illness, but it did not yield any result and order dt.10.06.2016 was not revoked.

14. The petitioners have preferred the present petition challenging the illegal action of the respondents by invoking the power under Rule 23-A of RSR for terminating their services by treating them as temporary employees.

15. It would be relevant to mention that in some cases the respondents have exercised the power under Rule 23-A (2) (a) of RSR and in some cases, the power under Rule 23-A (1) of RSR has been exercised.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the services of the petitioners could not have been terminated by invoking Rule