JUDGMENT 1. - In all these identical writ petitions, the grievances raised by the petitioners are common and the facts involved are not in dispute. They were, therefore, heard together and are decided by a common order. 2. It would be proper to briefly notice the facts and circumstances as well as the back-ground giving rise to these petitions. The petitioners were selected as Teachers Gr.-III by the District Establishment Committee under Section 88(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities & Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). In consequence of the selection made, some of the petitioners were appointed as teachers, while no appointment on the post of teacher was given to some of them. It so happened that many persons were appointed as teachers Gr. III on temporary basis from time to time in the various Panchayat Samities during different years. Their appointments were made for the period up to the end of academic session or till the regularly selected candidates were available. The State Government issued an order on 06.04.1988 taking a policy decision that those teachers who were appointed on temporary /ad hoc basis prior to 31.12.85 shall he confirmed and made permanent. Those teachers appointed subsequent to 31.12.1985 filed the writ petitions challenging the validity of the order issued on 06.04.1988 and contended that there was no nexus between the date of 31.12.1985 and the order dated 06.04.1988. While those writ petitions were pending in this court, the selection of the petitioner took place. The State Government then issued another order on 15.11.1988 withdrawing the order dated 06.04.1988. All those teachers appointed even subsequent to 31.12.1985 were thus allowed to remain in service. The petitioners who came by selection, now challenge the validity of the order dated 15.11.1988 because some of them could not seek appointment; the services of some of them were terminated and the apprehension arose for the rest that their services were likely to be terminated on account of the order dated 15.11.1988. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that the order dated 15.11.1988 is bad and invalid. They have come by regular selection under Section 88 of the Act. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that the order dated 15.11.1988 is bad and invalid. They have come by regular selection under Section 88 of the Act. The State Government could not issue any order retaining the services of the teaches appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis and terminating the services of the regularly selected candidates or refusing to give any appointment to them in pursuance to the impugned order dated 15.11.88. 4. Despite service of notices on Zila Parishads and Panchayat Samities. no return was filed by them nor any appearance was put by them to contest these writ petitions. The State Government who was impleaded as a respondent and who issued the impugned order dated 15.11.1988 also did not file any return or reply. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocates. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the judgmens delivered on January 12. 1989 by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Yasoda Rani v. State of Rajasthan & Others (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24/89) and connected 69 writ petitions (reported in 1989 (1) RLR 69 ) . Those writ petitions were filed by the teachers appointed on temporary/ad hoc basis. It was argued that in view of the judgment given on January 12, 1989. the respondents must give appointments to the duly selected candidates and if the appointments have been given, their services should not be terminated simply because the non- selected teachers are to be retained in service. Learned Govt. Advocates frankly conceded that in view of the judgment delivered on January 12, 1989 they are not in a position to contest the present writ petitions. It would be profitable to reproduce the following passages from the judgment given in Yasoda Rani's case : "In the course of arguments, we called for the minutes taking these decisions and find that the services of the petitioners were terminated on account of the availability of the regularly selected candidates. It is not disputed before us by the respondents that even after making the appointments of the regularly selected candidates or retaining those teachers in service who were appointed prior to 31.12.1985, some posts will still remain vacant and available for fresh appointments. It is not disputed before us by the respondents that even after making the appointments of the regularly selected candidates or retaining those teachers in service who were appointed prior to 31.12.1985, some posts will still remain vacant and available for fresh appointments. It was frankly conceded before us on behalf' of the petitioners that they cannot claim any priority over the regularly selected candidates/teachers or those teachers who were appointed prior to 31.12.1985. In view of these admitted facts and circumstances and the position, the only question which survives for our consideration is whether it would be fit and proper to issue directions to the respondents to adjust/accomodate/appoint petitioners on the posts lying vacant after the appointments of the regularly selected candidates which will also include those candidates, who are in the waiting/reserve lists. Article 45 of the Constitution enjoins a duty on the State to make provisions for free and compulsory education for all children. This principle can be achieved only when the State proceeds in the matter of education right earnestly." Thereafter, it was observed and decided as under:- "Having taken all these facts into consideration, we pass the following directions in these writ petitions : 1. The respondents shall first make the appointments of the duly selected candidates which will also include those candidates who are in the waiting/reserve lists. 2. If the vacancies still then remain, the respondents will make the appointments of those petitioners who are better and higher qualified and possess better academic qualification among them and who are otherwise eligible for appointment like having the qualification of teachers training etc. 3. The respondents in making these appointments will follow the principle and policy that the services of the last appointed petitioner will be terminated first, and the services of the earlier appointed petitioner will be terminated subsequent i. e. to say on the principle of "last come- first go". 4. The respondents will be at liberty to give preference to the lady teachers in the matter of appointment after laying down a policy in this behalf, and 5. The respondents will keep the roster system in view and strictly follow it in the matter of appointment." 7. It thus stands already decided by this court that the respondents shall first give appointments to the duly selected candidates, which will include those candidates who are in the waiting/reserve list. The respondents will keep the roster system in view and strictly follow it in the matter of appointment." 7. It thus stands already decided by this court that the respondents shall first give appointments to the duly selected candidates, which will include those candidates who are in the waiting/reserve list. It is only thereafter that the non- selected teachers were to be retained in service on temporary/ad hoc basis, if the vacancies still existed. 8. We have carefully gone through the impugned order dated 15.11.1988, marked as Annexure-2 in D. B. C. Writ Petition No. 4529/88 Baijnath v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The State Government reviewed its earlier order, by which the services of the teachers appointed on temporary/ad hoc basis were terminated and issued directions to reinstate them or retain them in service. This order dated 15.11.1988 Annexure-2 has been impliedly set-aside in the judgment delivered in Yasoda Rani's case. Otherwise, too, we have examined Annexure-2 and find that it is bad and invalid. The petitioners have come by regular selection under Section 88 (2) (a) of the Act. A duly selected candidate should generally be given appointment unless there are reasons not to do so. Of course, the selection does not invest a right of appointment in the selected candidates, but in order to deprive him of the right of appointment, the reasons should be there. It is a well established principle that the person appointed on temporary/ ad hoc basis without selection should surrender in favour of a person who comes by regular selection. If this principle is not followed, there will remain no meaningful purpose for making the selection. In that case, the entire exercise of selection will be futile and useless. That is not the purpose, which the legislature had in mind while inserting Section 88 in the Act. Section 86 (6) of the Act lays down that appointment by direct recruitment shall be made by a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad from out of the persons selected for the post in the district by the District Establishment Committee referred to in sub-Sec. (1) of Section 88. Section 86 (8) of the Act lays down that temporary appointment can be made for a period not exceeding six months and the period of six months can be extended only after consultation with the District Establishment Committee. Section 86 (8) of the Act lays down that temporary appointment can be made for a period not exceeding six months and the period of six months can be extended only after consultation with the District Establishment Committee. This Section also makes a provision that the temporary appointment and the extension there after can be made only so long the selection is not made by the District Establishment Committee. Here in these writ petitions before us. the selections of the petitioners have been made by the District Establishment Committees. As such the services of temporary/ ad hoc appointments of the non-selected candidates should he dispensed with. It is to be done so in order to appoint the duly selected candidates. 9. In the result, we allow the writ petitions and issue the following directions to the respondents:- 1. The respondents shall not terminate the services of the petitioners, who have already been appointed, in order to retain in service the non- selected candidates; 2. If the orders of termination of services of the petitioners have been issued, such orders shall stand quashed and they shall be reinstated forthwith, and 3. If the appointments to the duly selected petitioners have not been given, the appointments will be forthwith given now. Those of the petitioners, who have been appointed in pursuance of the interim stay orders passed by this court, will continue in service and appointment orders will be issued to them, if not issued so far. 10. No order as to costs. 11. A cyclostyled copy of this order be placed in all these writ petitions.Petition allowed. *******