JUDGMENT 1. - Under this order we will be dealing with the above numbered batch of writ petitions as the question involved in all the cases is identical and for the disposal of these writ petitions, we will give the facts of Ratan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1830/85. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 297 read with Section 88 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1954 (Act No. 38 of 1959) (for short, the Act) the State Government made the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (for short, the Rules). In the present batch of writ petitions the categories of posts involved are of subordinate service and the posts of Assistant Revenue Inspectors, Nakedar (Moharrar), Sub-Nakedar (Sub Moharrar), Lower Division Clerks are the categories for which each of the petitioners on the advertisement No. 7/1984 published in Dainik Navjyoti dated October 15, 1984, issued by the Rajasthan Panchayat and Local Self Government Service Commission, Jaipur (for short, the Commission) had applied. The application form for each of the posts was purchased by paying Rs. 8/-. The petitioner after having purchased the application form by deposit of Rs. 8/- applied for the post of Junior Engineer, Municipal Council Jaipur. About 2000 posts in different categories were advertised to be filled in the Municipal Councils/Boards in the State of Rajasthan and a large number of applications were received by the last date i.e. December 31, 1984. The petitioner did not receive an inter-view call and so far as other applicants arc concerned, they also did not receive the interview-calls. A Notification dated July 4, 1985 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated July 18, 1985, making the amendments in the proviso to rule 8 of the Rales a in the said proviso prior to the aforesaid amendment the date was mentioned August 31, 1980, but inc said date was substituted by the date December 31, 1984. A Notification dated July 4, 1985 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated July 18, 1985, making the amendments in the proviso to rule 8 of the Rales a in the said proviso prior to the aforesaid amendment the date was mentioned August 31, 1980, but inc said date was substituted by the date December 31, 1984. After the aforesaid amendment the first proviso to rule 8 of the Rules will read as under:- "Provided that the cases of such persons who were temporarily appointed during the period from 24.11.1963 to 31.12.1984 (both inclusive) and who have not so far been confirmed on their respective posts, although working continuously shall be referred to the Commission by the Board concerned alongwith its recommendations for adjudging their suitability. The service record of the persons shall be sent to the Commission while referring cases to it. The Commission, after considering the recommendations of the Board, the service record of the individuals, their qualifications, age etc. adjudge their suitability and shall communicate its decision to the Board concerned. The persons found suitable shall be treated as substantively appointed from the date of their temporary appointment." The second proviso provides that in case a person is not adjudged suitable by the Commission for the post to which he has been appointed, his services shall be terminated forthwith and thereupon such post shall be deemed to have become vacant and shall then be filled in accordance with the Rules. 3. It may be stated that the aforesaid Notification dated July 4, 1985 was repeated in the Rajasthan Gazette dated July 25, 1985. 4. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid Notification on the ground that the same is arbitrary, malafide and without authority of law. 5. In the return filed on behalf of the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 a case has been set up that the necessity of amendment arose because in 1983-84 a large number of temporary appointments under rule 27 of the Rules were made and they were made after inviting the names of suitable persons from the Employment Exchange. Those persons had made representations through the Municipal Employees Federation to regularise the cases of such of the persons who have been appointed and working in the municipal institutions after March 31, 1980. Those persons had made representations through the Municipal Employees Federation to regularise the cases of such of the persons who have been appointed and working in the municipal institutions after March 31, 1980. The State Government considered the representations and in administrative exigencies took a decision to regularise the services of those who have been appointed upto December 31, 1984. It is also the case of the non-petitioners in the return filed by them that it is the concern of the Municipal Council/Municipal Board which is the appointing authority of the subordinate and ministerial staff governed under the Rules and therefore the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the State Government have nothing to do with their appointment. The allegations that the said amendment has been made in order to extract money from the persons has been denied and it is said that it is the Commission which has to make the appointment and the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 do not come in picture and therefore, no question of extracting any money arises. 6. We may at the very outset state that the allegation that the aforesaid amendment in the first proviso to rule 8 has been made malafide in order to extract money from the temporary employees are vague and even otherwise we do not find any substance in it. So far as the legislative competence of the State Government to make the amendment in the Rules is concerned, it can hardly be disputed. We will presently give the legislative history of rule 8 of the Rules in order to show as to why the aforesaid amendment has been made. The Act came into force on September 7, 1959, when it received the assent of the President of India. It was an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Municipalities in the State of Rajasthan. Rule 7 of the Rules deals with initial constitution of the service and classification of Board and under its sub-rule (2) all persons holding appointments to the different categories of posts included in the service on 17.10.1959 shall be deemed to have been substantively appointed thereto by the Board under the provisions of these rules. Under sub-rule (2) of rule 7 of the Rules all persons appointed during the period October 17, 1959 to Nov. Under sub-rule (2) of rule 7 of the Rules all persons appointed during the period October 17, 1959 to Nov. 23, 1963 and who have been confirmed during the said period shall be deemed to have been substantively appointed on those posts in the service from the date of such confirmation and those who have not been so confirmed shall be treated as probationers and may be confirmed in accordance with the provisions of the rules. It will therefore be clear that before the Rules came into force after one month of their publication in the official gazette provision had been made for initial constitution of the service not only for those who have been appointed and who were holding the appointments in different categories of posts on October 17, 1959, but also for those who have been appointed in between October 17, 1959 and November 23, 1963. Rule 8, in part III of the Rules, deals with methods of recruitment and under the first proviso as it then stood, there was only a provision for adjudging the suitability by the Commission of the employees appointed between November 24, 1963 and April 1, 1975. Some of the employees appointed in-between November 24, 1963 and April 1, 1975 were regularised but later on the date was substituted by November 5, 1978 and then by March 31, 1980 and some of the persons who were appointed under rule 27 of the Rules were regularised after their suitability was adjudged by the Commission. It may be stated that the applications had been invited also in the year 1980 but because of representations from the employees who had been appointed in between April 1, 1975 and March 31, 1980, no recruitment was held and the impugned amendment in the first proviso by substituting the date March 31, 1980 and March 31, 1984 was also introduced in Rule 8 of the Rules on the representation of the employees who have been appointed between March 31, 1980 and March 31, 1984. 7. The Commission is defined in rule 3(d) of the Rules and means the Commission constituted by the Government for the purpose of direct recruitment to the service. 7. The Commission is defined in rule 3(d) of the Rules and means the Commission constituted by the Government for the purpose of direct recruitment to the service. Procedure for direct recruitment is contained in part IV of the Rules and under rule 17(1) of the Rules it is the Executive Officer of the Board who has to submit at the beginning of every year a statement of vacancies under each grade under different categories likely to fall vacant to the Director. The statement will signify (i) name of posts, (ii) number of posts, (iii) qualifications prescribed for the post and a remark is also required to be made in the remarks column whether the post has been sanctioned in the budget or not. Under rule 18 a consolidated list of vacancies has to be complied (sic compiled) by the Director and forwarded to the Commission and on receipt of the requisition for direct recruitment to the service applications are to be invited by the Commission in such manner as they deem fit under rule 19 of the Rules. Then there is provision for scrutiny of the applications and for interview of such of the candidates who may be found qualified for appointment. Then the Commission has to prepare a Board-wise list of the candidates who are considered suitable for appointment to each grade or category of post, and the list so prepared has to be forwarded by the Commission to the concerned Board. Under rule 22 (2) appointment of the subordinate and ministerial staff has to be made by the appointing authority out of the list prepared by the Commission under sub rule (1) of rule 22 in the order in which names of the candidates appear in the list. It will therefore be clear that as per part IV of the Rules the appointments have to be made Board-wise out of the list prepared by the Commission and hence it is the Commission which was entrusted the job of inviting applications and making selections. It will therefore be clear that as per part IV of the Rules the appointments have to be made Board-wise out of the list prepared by the Commission and hence it is the Commission which was entrusted the job of inviting applications and making selections. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of rule 3 of the Rules the Government of Rajasthan under its Notification dated January 16, 1967 constituted a commission comprising of the following-(a) Chairman, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service Selection Commission as Chairman and Member, Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Service Selection Commission other than the Pramukh of a Zila Parishad as member and Chairman of the Municipal Council/Board concerned as Member. It may be stated that though the said Commission was constituted in the year 1967, but it does not appear that any recruitment for any post of subordinate service was made through the medium of the Commission and the necessity of making change in the first proviso to rule 8 of the Rules arose. Advertisement No. 7/1984 was published in the Daily Navjyoti dated October 15, 1984 inviting applications for various categories of posts numbering about 2000 by the Secretary of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Local Self Government Commission Jaipur. Not only the selections to the various posts which were advertised were not made but it appears that the Government of Rajasthan Local Self Department under its order dated December 16, 1986 during the pendency of the writ petitions withdrew the requisition sent to the Commission on the ground of changed circumstances. It was mentioned in the letter that the said requisition be considered to have been cancelled. Not only the aforesaid requisition for the posts was cancelled but under Notification No. F. 2(36) TAX/LSG/58/43 dated January 28, 1987 in supersession of the notification No. TAX/F. 2 (36)LSG/58/2416-2691 dated Jan. 16. 1967 published in the Extraordinary issue of Rajasthan Gazette part IV(c) dated January 17, 1967, as amended from time to time and in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of rule 3 of the Rules, the State Government constituted the Commission for the purpose of the Rules, consisting of the following:- (i) Collector of District or his nominee not below the rank of the Addl. Collector. Chairman (ii) President/Chairman/Administrator of Municipal Council/Board, concerned. Member (iii) Regional Asstt. Director Local Bodies, concerned. Member-Secretary. Collector. Chairman (ii) President/Chairman/Administrator of Municipal Council/Board, concerned. Member (iii) Regional Asstt. Director Local Bodies, concerned. Member-Secretary. The aforesaid Notification further provides that the Collector or his nominee will preside over the meeting of the commission and the quorum of the meeting will not be complete unless the meeting is attended to by Collector/his nominee. It is also provided that all decisions will be taken by majority. In any meeting which is attended to by 2 members only, in that case decision taken unanimously will be sent to the third member and the meeting of the Commission shall be held at the concerned District Headquarter. It will therefore be clear that the Commission which had invited applications for various posts no longer exists and now for each of the Board a Commission has been constituted separately of which the Collector or his nominee not below the rank of Addl. Collector will be the Chairman. In view of the changed circumstances, it will not be possible to order that the respondent No. 4 should call the candidates for interview for different posts in the service. That apart, we may state that the legislative competence of the State Government to amend rule 8 can hardly be disputed. The first proviso to rule 8 was amended because a large number of appointments to various categories of posts were made in between March 31, 1980 and December 31, 1984. There were representations not only by the employees but their Federation. Each of the aforesaid appointment as appears from the reply, was made under rule 27 and was emergent temporary appointment. A look at rule 27 which appears in part VI of the Rules will show that in case the vacancy under sub-rule (1) is provided to be filled in by direct recruitment, the same shall be notified to the nearest Employment Exchange which shall be asked to send a penal of names of persons possessing the qualifications, consisting at least 5 times the number of the vacancies to be filled. The emergent temporary appointments generally could not continue beyond one year without referring to the Commission in case of direct recruitment for its concurrence. But the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 27 gave power to the Director that until selected candidates are made available by the Commission, the term may be extended from time to time. The emergent temporary appointments generally could not continue beyond one year without referring to the Commission in case of direct recruitment for its concurrence. But the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 27 gave power to the Director that until selected candidates are made available by the Commission, the term may be extended from time to time. Each of the employees continued since the date of his appointment and as already stated earlier the appointment was made out of the penal which was called for from the Employment Exchange. Generally, the appointment should be made every year by the Commission appointed by the Government under rule 3 (d) of the Rules, but it can hardly be disputed that looking to the exigencies or for the administrative reasons emergent appointments are to be made and are being made. If the employees have continued on the posts for number of years, human considerations prevail and some of them may even become over-age and may not be eligible to get appointment in case the posts are advertised. In the first proviso to rule 8 of the Rules such of the employees who had been appointed under rule 27 of the Rules are conferred a right of adjudging their suitability by the Commission and in case they are not found suitable, the vacancies are to be filled in accordance with law. Therefore, if the Government, which had power to amend the first proviso to rule 8 of the Rules, provided that such of the employees who had been appointed upto December 31, 1984, whose suitability may be adjudged by the Commission and if they are found suitable, they shall he confirmed, it can hardly be said that the Government acted malafide and arbitrarily. In the reply filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 it has been stated that more than 1000 posts in different cadres are still lying vacant. In the reply filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 it has been stated that more than 1000 posts in different cadres are still lying vacant. After adjudging the suitability of the employees who had been appointed upto December 31, 1984, atleast the Commission could have interviewed the candidates who had filed their applications for various categories of posts and appointments to those posts could have been as per the list prepared by the Commission sent to the different Municipal Councils/Boards.But that too was not dene and as stated earlier in the year 1986, even the constitution of the Commission was changed and the Commission was appointed for each of the Municipal Council/Board. We called Mr. N.L. Pareek to let this court know the vacancies in various categories of posts in the subordinate service and as per the information furnished by him it can be said that as on September 30, 1987. in the various Municipal Councils/Boards there were in all 1105 vacancies and might more vacancies occur due to retirement, Thus, in all there were 1113 vacancies in various categories of posts in the subordinate service. Generally for such of the posts, under Part IV of the Rules the direct recruitment must be held as per the procedure prescribed therein. Resort to temporary emergent appointment under rule 27 of the Rules can only be had in case any candidate out of the panel prepared under part IV of the Rules by the Commission is not available. A look at rule 17(1) of the Rules will show that the Executive Officer of the Board concerned has to submit at the beginning of every year a statement of vacancies under each grade under different categories likely to fall vacant to the Director. Thereafter, the list of vacancies is to be sent to the Commission and the Commission has to prepare a list of candidates who were considered suitable for appointment to each grade or category of posts and the Commission has to forward the said list to the Board concerned. Under sub-rule (2) of rule 22 appointment of the subordinate and ministerial staff shall be made by the appointing authority out of the list prepared by the Commission under sub-rule (1) of rule 22 in the order in which the names of the candidates appear in the list. Under sub-rule (2) of rule 22 appointment of the subordinate and ministerial staff shall be made by the appointing authority out of the list prepared by the Commission under sub-rule (1) of rule 22 in the order in which the names of the candidates appear in the list. Thus, out of the penal prepared by the Commission, generally appointments should be made and it will generally obviate the necessity of making urgent temporary appointment. It has already been observed that since the Rules were framed there has been no appointment as per part IV of the Rules and by and large the appointments have been made by the appointing authorities i.e. Municipal Boards/Councils concerned after calling the names from the Employment Exchange. It has also been seen that once the appointments are made under rule 27, they are continued for years and thereafter there are agitations from the employees and proviso to rule 8 has been amended from time to time making the provision for adjudging the suitability of the candidates who were appointed under rule 27 and the candidates are continued on their posts.This practice has deprived the candidates to compete from the open market and we may say that this practice of making appointment under rule 27 and then continuing them for years together, as they cannot he continued beyond a period of one year and this practice has to be depricated. It leads to favourtism and back-door entry. Not only this, the procedure for direct recruitment has been set at naught. Therefore, each of the Municipal Board/Council should send the statement of vacancies at the beginning of the every year to the Commission concerned and the appointment must be made in accordance with part IV of the Rules and only in exceptional cases looking to the emergency and we may say that if the panel is prepared, that necessity may not arise, that appointment under rule 27 should be made. Under rule 12 of the Rules a candidate for direct recruitment to the service must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 31 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of the applications. Under rule 12 of the Rules a candidate for direct recruitment to the service must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 31 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of the applications. Then there is relaxation to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and there is also provision under clause (iii) that the upper age limit may be relaxed upto 10 years with the prior written approval of the State Government in any exceptional cases or in respect of posts requiring technical qualifications. We have already said earlier that thousands of candidates applied for different posts numbering 2000. After adjudging the suitability of the candidates under the proviso to rule 8 of the Rules, there are still posts vacant more than 1000 and the Commission could have called them for interview and posts should have been filled but the requisition was withdrawn, and the constitution of the Commission was also changed.It is, therefore, not possible to order that the appointments to the remaining vacancies, which as we have said earlier, were 1113 as on September 30, 1987, in various categories of posts, should be made out of the applicants who had applied. But there were as many as 1113 posts which should be filled under part IV of the Rule; by direct recruitment, except for the posts, which can be filled by promotion. As different Commissions have been constituted under Section 3 (d) of the Act for different Municipal Boards/Councils, we will direct the Commissions to advertise various posts in respect of municipalities/boards and the petitioners as well as other persons out of those who applied in 1984 may submit their applications for more than 1000 posts and if it may become necessary to relax in the case of any of them, the State Government under the powers vested in it under clause (iii) of rule 12 of the Rules shall relax the age. 8. 8. Consequently, we partly allow these writ petitions and while we hold the amendment in proviso to rule 8 as intra-vires direct that different Commissions for different Municipal Boards/Councils throughout the State of Rajasthan will advertise different categories of vacant posts in the subordinate service and if any of the petitioners or any other person who had applied earlier has become over-age, the age shall be relaxed by the Government upto five years and the State Government is directed to pass necessary orders in that respect. The Commissions shall invite applications and make selections. The Municipal Boards/Councils are directed to send the requisitions to the Commissions and then the Commissions shall invite applications and make selections. This entire process shall be completed within six months. Thereafter the Commissions shall forward the names of the candidates selected to the different Municipal Boards/Councils and then the appointing authorities will make the appointments within two months thereafter. Thus, in all eight months time is allowed for the entire process. We further order that each of the petitioners shall get Rs. 1000/- as costs for each of the writ petitions from the respondents. (The above order has been reviewed in D. B. Civil Review Petition No. 126/1989 decided on 1st Feb., 1990-Editor Hon'ble M.B. Sharma, J. Hon'ble I.S. Israni, J.Mr. A.K. Sharma and Mr. K.C. Sharma, for the petitioner ;Mr. M.I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General.By the Court :1-A. A1 the parties are present. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in this review petition as well as Mr. A. K. Sharma in whose favour we have made an order. It appears that the Government had taken a decision to abolish some of the municipal boards and to convert them in Panchayats. It also appears that Government has also taken a decision to abolish octroi. The result of the above measures is likely that a number of persons in the various councils/municipalities may become surplus as a result of abolition of posts. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that our order dated 26.4.1989 in writ petition No. 1832/198 and 21 others will be confined to only petitioners in these 22 petitions. Mr. The result of the above measures is likely that a number of persons in the various councils/municipalities may become surplus as a result of abolition of posts. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that our order dated 26.4.1989 in writ petition No. 1832/198 and 21 others will be confined to only petitioners in these 22 petitions. Mr. Khan and the Secretary to the Local Self Government, who is also present today have agreed to provide employment to those 22 petitioners on the posts applied by them provided they fulfill all the conditions of eligibility under the Rules.2-A. Consequently, we hereby allow this review petition and order that our earlier order dated 26.4.1989 in the 22 writ petitions shall be confined to the petitioners of those writ petitions who shall be given employment on the posts applied by them subject to each of them fulfiling the conditions of eligibility under the Rules. We may make it clear that if any of the petitioners has become overage, as ordered by us under our earlier order, the Government will relax the age upto 5 years. It was given out that out of 22 petitioners 8 petitioners have been given employment on adhoc-basis. If that be so the appointment be given to remaining of the 22 petitioners within a period of three weeks from today. The direction given under our earlier order dated 26.4.1989 that the posts shall be advertised and shall be filled by the respective Distt. Commissions is withdrawn.Petitions partly allowed/ Review petit on also allowed. *******