Honble GUPTA, J.–In this writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule the petitioners sought directions against proposed termination of their services on 31.3.98, and to continue them in service till regularly selected candidates are made available through Rajasthan Public Service Commission to replace them.

(2). The facts are borrowed from writ petition No.884/98. The respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 6.10.97 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturers in different subjects for a period of four months or till the availability of selected candidates from the R.P.S.C., whichever is earlier. The petitioner being eligible applied for the post of Lecturer. He was found suitable for the appointment to the post and was appointed in a College at Chimanpura Shahpura vide order dt. 15.11.97 upto 31.3.98. The petitioner joined his duties on 18.11.97. Thereafter the R.P.S.C. also advertised posts to be filled in by selection vide advertisement no. 5/97-98 dt. 17.12.97. The applications were required to be submitted to the R.P.S.C. upto 9.2.98. The petitioner has also applied for the post. The petitioners in the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule were also appointed as Lecturers for the period ending on 31.3.98.

(3). The petitioners case is that the term of the appointment of the petitioner is to expire on 31.3.98 and hence his services shall be terminated on 31.3.98 and by this act of the respondents he would be deprived of the emoluments for the pe- riod of summer vacation and for the period till regular appointments are given after selection. It has been prayed that in the appointment order of the petitioner the fixing of the term upto 31.3.98 is illegal in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Mrs. Anita Kothari vs. State (1). It has been further prayed that the practice of giving temporary appointment upto the end of the academic session and to give fresh appointment on the commencement of next academic session is illegal as it a mechanism just to deprive the incumbents of emoluments for summer vacation whereas the vacations are part of the academic work and during that period the teachers get time to read new literature and update their knowledge. It has been prayed that the petitioner being qualified to hold the post of Lecturer should be al- lowed to continue till the regular appointments are made.

(4). In the return, the respondents case is that the petitioner was given appointment for a fixed period i.e. upto 31.3.98 or till a candidate duly selected by the RPSC is made available which is earlier and therefore he has acquired to serve upto 31.3.98 only and his service will be terminated in accordance with the terms of appointment. It has been denied that the term of the appointment fixed upto 31.3.98 is illegal. It has been averred that the petitioner accepted the terms of the appointment and therefore now he cannot be permitted to challenge these terms.

(5). It is relevant to point out that under the interim orders passed by this court all the petitioners are continuing in service even after 31.3.98.

(6). Mr. Mridul, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the termination of the petitioners on 31.3.98 is not permissible in view of the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court. He cited the following cases: Ratanlal vs. State of Haryana (2), Rajvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (3), Mrs. Anita Kothari vs. State of Raj. (supra)and Lecturers Forum vs. State of Rajasthan (4).

(7). As against this Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners were appointed for a fixed term and therefore they have no right whatsoever to continue after 31.3.98. He canvassed that neither there is violation of any rule or direction in appointing the petitioners for a fixed term. According to him the petitioners had accepted the terms of the appointment and they should not be permitted to challenge those terms. He submitted that the rati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document