Honble ASOPA, J.–By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has initially challenged the selection of respondent No.3 & 4 (Dr. Sudhir Mehta & Dr. Rajiv Bagarhatta) against the vacancies of the year 1990-91 for the post of Lecturer in General Medicine and to direct the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission to accordingly amend the result of the selection of the year 1990-91. The petitioner has further sought consequential direction of appointment to the said post against the year 1990- 91 with seniority.

(2). The facts in brief of the case are that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition initially challenging the eligibility of Dr. Sudhir Mehta and Dr. Rajiv Bagarhatta (respondent No.3 & 4 in the original writ petition) on the ground that these two private respondents were not eligible for appointment against the vacancies of the year 1990-91 to the post of Lecturer (General Medicine) on account of not completing the post-graduation degree i.e. M.D. in General Medicine upto 1.4.1990. Subsequently, an application was filed on 8.5.2006 for deleting the names of Dr. Rajiv Bagarhatta - respondent No.4, Dr. S.K. Sharma - respondent No.5 and Dr. Shiv Charan Jelia - respondent o.6 and the same was allowed on 11st May, 2006 along with another application of adding Dr. Prakash Keshwani as party. Presently, the grievance of the petitioner is confined to Dr. Sudhir Mehta - Respondent No.3 of the writ petition. Dr. Sudhir Bhandari, who was originally respondent No.7 is now respondent No.4 and Dr. Prakash Keshwani is respondent No.5.

(3). It is stated in the present writ petition that the writ petition No. 5424/1990 filed by the petitioner apprehending the termination while working as adhoc temporary Lecturer in General Medicine and for claiming regularisation was decided along with connected writ petition No. 5425/1990 of Dr. Sudhir Bhandari on 11.4.1990, was dismissed so far as claim of the petitioner to be treated as substantive appointee is concerned. However, termination of the petitioner was declared illegal. The operative portion of the said judgment dated 11.4.1994 is as under:

"In the result of the writ petitions are dismissed so far as claim of the petitioners to be treated as substantive appointees is concerned. However, termination of the petitioner is declared illegal. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service till the availability of of the candidates selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The Commission is directed to interview the petitioners and other adhoc appointees who have completed three years of more of service without requiring them to appear in the screening test. While interviewing them along with other candidates the Commission shall take into consideration their performance and service record. The respondent Government is directed to positively make year-wise determination of vacancies under rule 8A of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) rules and send requisition for various posts under these rules on yearly basis. The Commission must also make year-wise selection as far as possible. Costs made easy."

(4). Against the said judgment in both the cases, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short `in RPSC) filed special appeals, which were registered as DB civil special appeal Nos. 492/94 and 533/94. The said special appeals were disposed of on 8th May, 1995 without there being any order of cost and the directions issued by learned Single Judge were sustained with following modifications. The relevant portion of the said judgment dated 8th May, 1995 is as follows:

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after, careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge deserves to be sustained with following modification:

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to interview the respondents-petitioners, namely, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Surekha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document