JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) AFTER the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967, for short the Rules, were framed, diverse changes took place in the educational set-up of the State and care was taken, therefore, to meet the new challenge by amending the Rules in 1976. Provision was made by inserting sub-rule (4) in rule 13 of the aforesaid Rules and a new Schedule, Schedule I1i-A, was also inserted to deal with cases of "absorption" of Teaching Staff of "non-government colleges taken over by Government". A second and material change was made subsequently in 1980, when the amended sub-rule underwent a further change to include cases of "sports officers" to which category, the petitioner belonged. The short point which arises for my consideration in this case is whether these Rules can be given a total go-bye and an executive fiat can destroy the potency and validity of these Rules. ( 2. ) THE facts of the case bear a thumb-nail narration inasmuch as it is not disputed that the petitioner was serving as a Sports-Officer in Municipal Girls College. Vidisha, which was taken over by the State Governemnt in 1983 and renamed as Government girls College, Vidisha. The petitioners case is that in virtue of the provisions of clause 2 of the aforesaid Schedule III-A, she had the right to continue in service under the new set-up till such time as her case received the consideration of the Screening Committee. The relevant precision is as follows : "2. Jurisdiction of Screening Committee.- The Screening Committee shall consider the cases of staff in the college for absorption in Government the term service staff defined in clause l (iii) to mean the Principal and the teaching staff of all classes in the permanent or temporary or contract service of the non-government college at the time when the college is taken over by Government". In this context, it will be appropriate to recall that the 1980 Amendment of the Rules brought within its purview the "sports Officers" and made them members of "staff" of non-government college, whose cases have also to be considered by the Screening Committee according to the mandate of Rule 2. In this context, it will be appropriate to recall that the 1980 Amendment of the Rules brought within its purview the "sports Officers" and made them members of "staff" of non-government college, whose cases have also to be considered by the Screening Committee according to the mandate of Rule 2. 1 have not an iota of doubt that the power to deal with cases of members of the "staff" of non-government colleges taken over by the Government was vested in the Screening Committee, constituted under clause 2 aforesaid and until and unless their cases receive the consideration of the said Committee, no order to their detriment can be passed by any other authority. A right to be absorbed under the new provisions enacted in Schedule III-A is definitely created and no arbitrary action of any nature in tampering with the statutory right can tolerate constitutional cavil. A detailed procedure is to be found in the new Schedule for consideration of cases for "absorption" and without such procedure being followed, no action can be taken by any authority to affect adversely the service conditions of any member of the staff of non-government colleges taken over by Government. The new provision does not reserve any right in favour of any authority to deal with the tenure of services, in any manner; of any member of the "staff" of such an institution and as such no power can be found outside the Rules to authorise any Executive fiat to issue to annihilate the object and purpose of the statutory provision. ( 3. ) WHAT has happened in this case defies description because the arbitrary action of the functionaries of the Education Department of the State Government is grossly violative of the statutory provision afore-quoted. The petitioners services are sought to be terminated. The petitioner is sought to be denied the right to wages earned by rendering service in the institution. Both grievances undoubtedly have a constitutional complexion as violation of Articles 16 and 23 is writ large on the Executive fiat projected in Annexures P/9 and R/3. The petitioner approached this Court for redressal of her grievances by filing a writ petition on 1-6-1984. During the pendency of the petition, annexure P/9 was issued on 25-6-1984 to establish a fictional fact, stranger than the strangest of the known wonders of the world. The petitioner approached this Court for redressal of her grievances by filing a writ petition on 1-6-1984. During the pendency of the petition, annexure P/9 was issued on 25-6-1984 to establish a fictional fact, stranger than the strangest of the known wonders of the world. A deliberate attempt at para 4 of the letter, addressed by the Under Secretary in the Higher Education Department of the State government, to the Principal, Girls College, Vidisha, is reflected in clear terms. It is stated that although on 1 -6-1984, this Court had ordered "status quo "in the matter to be maintained, it had to be clarified that vide orders dated 25-7-1983 and 19-9-1983; the services of the petitioner had been terminated. The order dated 25-7-1983 is Annexure r/3, which is in the nature of a circular letter, addressed by the Under Secretary in the higher Education Department of the State Government, to the Government Girls college. Vidisha. It purports to carry a direction to the effect that those persons who were holding any post on ad hoc basis shall not be continued in service. This direction is patently violative of the aforesaid clause 2 and the action against the petitioner was being justified on the basis of this circular. However, Shri Mishra, petitioners counsel has drawn my attention to Annexures P/10 and P/13 to submit that in so far as the petitioner was concerned, her services had not been factually terminated by the appropriate authority and the Principal of Government Girls College, Vidisha accepted this position in the said Annexures. ( 4. ) THE relief claimed by the petitioner, in the above facts and circumstances, for the reasons aforesaid, must be granted. I have no hesitation to hold that Annexures P/9 and R/3 are wholly without jurisdiction and the action contemplated thereunder is wholly illegal and ultra vires the provisions of Schedule III-A. above referred. The petitioner is entitled to continue in service until such time as her case is not considered by the Screening Committee constituted under the aforesaid Rules and she is also entitled to payment of salaries due to her. which has not been paid since 1-6-1983. ( 5. ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed with the directions aforesaid. which has not been paid since 1-6-1983. ( 5. ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed with the directions aforesaid. The arbitrary action of the respondents, during the pendency of the petition, has obviously aggravated the petitioners grievance and she is entitled to her costs, in determining which, I have also to take into consideration the fact that she has been deprived of her constitutional right to livelihood as a result of her lawful dues of salary being denied to her for the last 21/2 years. Accordingly. I quantify the costs at Rs. 1,000/-, which shall be paid to the petitioner within two months and the arrears of salary due to the petitioner shall also be cleared within the same period. Outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.