IMPORTANT POINTS
Illegal beneficiaries from the selection process, if any, should be weeded out instead of striking down the entire selection process.
While exercising discretion under Article 226, equities in regard to the parties have to be balanced.

JUDGMENT

Ganguly, J. —

1. Leave is granted in all these Special Leave Petitions.

2. These appeals arise from the decision delivered on 06.08.2004 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Review Petitions1071/2003, 1074/2003, and decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP(C) 63/2002 and WP (C) 1529/2001 dated 03.11.2003. The Review Petitions were filed by those teachers who, though not impleaded in the writ petitions, were affected by High Court’s decision dated 3.11.2003.

3. Appellants are a group of Grade II and III school teachers working in Panchayat Schools as Samvida Shala Shikshak (contractual teachers). They had been appointed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Contractual Teachers (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter “2001 Rules”). These selection rules which had come into force on 11.07.2001 were made in exercise of the powers conferred under sub- section (1) of Section 95 read with sub- section (2) of Section 70 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 (Act 1 of 1994).

4. Pursuant to the provisions of the said rules, an advertisement was issued by the Zila Panchayat Office, District Bhind, to initiate selection process for the appointments. All the appellants had applied and were selected and consequently appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak.

5. These appointments however were challenged in two Public Interest Litigations being WP(C) 1529/2001 and WP(C) 63/2002, inter alia, on the ground that in contravention of the 2001 Rules, no proper advertisement for reservation for ex-servicemen had been made. It was further challenged as being held in contravention of para 5 (viii) of the order passed by the State Government vide memo dated 11.7.2001, as members of the selection committee had their near relatives appear as candidates for selection. While WP (C) 1529/2001 challenged the appointments made by Janpad Panchayat Mehagaon, WP (C) 63/2002 challenged the appointments made by Janpad Panchayat Raun. Both the panchayats are within the district of Bhind, Madhya Pradesh.

Rule 5 (4) (b) of 2001 Rules provides:

“For each category of the vacantposts, the reservation shall be -

(i) xxx

(ii) xxx

(iii) 10% for ex-army personnel;

(iv) Reservation shall also be provided to any other category which is notified by the Government from time to time.

6. Para 5 (viii) of the memo dated 11.07.2001 provides:

(5) Some provisions of the Contractual Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules 2001 are to be specifically kept in mind, which are as follows:-

(i) xxx

(ii)xxx

(iii)xxx

(iv)xxx

(v)xxx

(vi)xxx

(vii)xxx

(viii) Prior to the constitution of the interview board it will be ensured that the son/daughter or real relatives of the Members of the Board are not participating in the interview. It will be appropriate that an undertaking may be taken from the Members in this behalf.”

7. Before the High Court the petitions were heard mainly on the points mentioned above.

8. With respect to WP No. 1529/2001 the High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the cancellation of appointments, inter alia, on the grounds that appointments were illegal as members of the selection committee allowed their near relatives to appear in the selection process. It stated that on the basis of an inquiry conducted by the District Collector, show-cause notices were issued to three members of the selection committee asking them as to why did their relatives appeared as candidates in the selection.

9. The High Court further held that in contravention of Rule 5 (4) (b) which mandated 10 per cent reservation for ex- servicemen, no proper advertisement had been made so as to invite applications from ex-servicemen. The High Court noted that the Respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh had accepted this mistake on its part. On the question as to whether those who had already been appointed and were being affected by the said order of quashing the appointments, were to be impleaded or not, the Court hel