The appointment of a candidate cannot be based on the place of residence, and vague assertions without specification cannot be upheld by the court.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Borana, J. - Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are as under:

The petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III for the District Chittorgarh and in the merit list issued for the purpose, he found place at serial No. 442. After the select list being issued and the appointments being given to the eligible candidates, it was found that one person named Jagdish Babu who was at serial No. 453 in the merit list was offered appointment whereas the petitioner was not.

2. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B.C.W.P. No. 1270/1996 decided on 13.10.2004 The said writ petition of the petitioner was allowed with the following observations:

"The notification dated 22.03.1995 is having no application for the persons belonging to the general categories irrespective of their place of residence. In view of it the preference given to the respondent No. 4 while making appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III vis-a-vis. the petitioner is absolutely illegal and is having no foundation. The act of the respondents by not giving appointment to the petitioner though he stood at quite a higher pedestal in the merit, vis-a-vis. the respondent No. 4, is nothing but hostile and conscious discrimination, as such the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The order of appointment dated 21.03.1996 to the extent it relates to respondent No. 4 Shri Jagdish Babu Trivedi, therefore, deserves to be declared illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment as Teacher Gr. III in place of respondent No. 4.

As a consequence of declaration above, this writ petition is accepted and the order of appointment dated 21.03.1996 is quashed and set aside to the extent it relates to appointment of respondent No. 4. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III from the date order of appointment was issued in favour of respondent No. 4. The appointment shall be given to the petitioner after considering his candidature if he is otherwise found fit."

3. When the order dated 13.10.2004 was not complied with, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition and during the pendency of the said contempt petition he was offered appointment vide order dated 22.03.2006. After being appointed, when the salary was not released to the petitioner he preferred a second contempt petition before this Court and during the pendency of the same, the salary was paid and hence the second contempt petition was also dismissed. Vide order dated 12.12.2007 the pay-scale of the petitioner was revised and he continued in service.

4. Surprisingly, notice dated 21.03.2008 was served on the petitioner with an averment that the appointment accorded to the petitioner was not in terms of law and in terms of the earlier judgment dated 13.10.2004 of this Court, as there were 56 persons finding place in merit between Jagdish Babu and the present petitioner. In the notice, it was further mentioned that as the appointment of Jagdish Babu was held to be bad by this Court, the appointment of the petitioner was also bad as there were more meritorious persons available in the merit list. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show cause why his appointment be not cancelled.

5. A detailed reply to the show cause notice was given by the petitioner and without considering the same, the impugned order dated 29.08.2008 was passed whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated finding him not to be eligible to be appointed. Against the said order dated 29.08.2008, the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. It would be relevant to submit here that by virtue of interim order dated 22.09.2008, the petitioner continues to be in service.

7. On merits, counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly, the Department has nowhere named or mentioned t