JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition the petitioner who was holding the post of Junior Geologist in the service of the Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation (for short 'RSMDC') has challenged legality of the order dated 7.1.1991 by which his service has been terminated. He has prayed for quashing of that order with a direction for continuity of service, regularisation on the post of Junior Geologist with effect from 5.5.86 and for grant of consequential benefits. 2. In the writ petition the petitioner has-stated that' Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation is an agency/instrumentality of the State and is, therefore, covered by the term 'other authorities' used under Article-12 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has then stated that he was appointed as Junior Geologist in the service of RSMPC on 5.5.86. At that time he possessed qualification of M.Sc.(Geology). Initial appointment was for six months and on temporary basis. The term of appointment was extended by orders dated 11.12.1986, 19.6.1987, 3.5.89, 21/23.10.89, 21/23.4.90 and 1.9.1990. He was given regular increments for time to time. That shows that his service has been satisfactory. He has stated that his service record is clean and no adverse remark was over communicated to him. No explanation in respect of any allegation of delinquency was called for from the petitioner. After appointment of the petitioner an advertisement was issued on 24.5.86 whereby three posts of Junior Geologist were advertised. However, selection was not made in pursuance of that advertisement. Some more vacancies were advertised subsequently but the same have also not been filled. Shri M.C.Sharma was appointed on the post of Junior Geologist just after 2-3 days of the appointment of the petitioner. A Screening was held on 24.4.90 for regularising the adhoc/temporary appointment of Shri M.C.Sharma. The Selection Committee/Screening Committee found Shri M.C.Sharma suitable. However, the petitioner was not found suitable for regularisation of his service. His service was terminated vide order dated 5.6.90. The petitioner has stated that the Selection Committee/Screening Committee which conducted the interviews on 24.4.90 had not acted fairly and impartially and even the constitution of the committee was illegal and wrong. The Selection Committee/Screening Committee found Shri M.C.Sharma suitable. However, the petitioner was not found suitable for regularisation of his service. His service was terminated vide order dated 5.6.90. The petitioner has stated that the Selection Committee/Screening Committee which conducted the interviews on 24.4.90 had not acted fairly and impartially and even the constitution of the committee was illegal and wrong. The petitioner filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur and a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that the respondent Corporation filed a reply. When the Corporation realised that it is likely to be defeated in the aforesaid suit, order of termination dated 5.6.90 was modified and the petitioner was reinstated on the post of Junior Geologist vide order dated 1.9.90. The petitioner thereafter withdrew his suit from the Court. In this manner the petitioner has been continuously working .without any break. However, all of a sudden an order dated 7.1.1991 has been passed terminating his service on the ground that his case has not been regularised as there was no general vacancies and he was not found suitable by the Selection Committee for this post. The petitioner has further stated that candidates belonging to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe are not available and the vacancies advertised for the posts meant for SC/ST have not been filled so far. 3. The petitioner has challenged termination of his service on the ground that it is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner has served for a almost five years, though on temporary basis. Vacancies in the general quota are still available but on account of annoyance of the non-petitioner Corporation because of filing of Civil Suit by the petitioner, his service has been terminated. The petitioner has claimed that as per the various decisions of the Court, he has a right to be regularised in service after having rendered on year's service. 4. In its reply the respondent Corporation has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction and also filed an application for temporary injunction in the matter of terminating of his service by order dated 7.1.1991. The suit has been registered by the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur as Civil Suit No.106/91. The suit has been registered by the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur as Civil Suit No.106/91. The petitioner has filed a writ petition immediately thereafter and concealed this fact from the High Court. By suppressing this fact he could get a direction in the form of stay order in his favour from the Court. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from getting any relief by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent has then stated that as per the RSMDC Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 19,:.' the post of Junior Geologists is to be filled 100% by direct recruitment and the qualification required for direct recruitment is M.Sc. Geology (I-Div.) with one year experience or M.Sc. Geology (II-Division) with 3 years experience. When the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 he was not even eligible because he did not have any experience in Mining/Geological Organisation of repute. After making a temporary appointment of the petitioner, regular selection could not be made due to administrative exigencies and, therefore, term of temporary appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time. The advertisement of the posts had been made in the year 1986 but on account of restriction imposed by the Govt. in respect of recruitment regular selection could not be made. The respondent has denied the statement of the petitioner that his explanation was ever called for from him. In para-7 of the reply it has been stated that the sanctioned cadre strength of the post of Junior Geologist is 10. Against these 10 posts, 8 persons (regularly selected) are working. 2 are working on higher post on adhoc basis and they have lien that post of Junior Geologist. 2 lien vacancies are reserved for members of SC/ST and, therefore, the petitioner can not be accommodated against any one of these vacancies. The respondent has further stated that the petitioner has deliberately mislead the Court in believing that some screening was held on 24.4.90 in which he was not selected. On the contrary an advertisement was issued on 11.10.89. The petitioner, Shri M.C. Sharma and 7 other candidates of general category and one belonging to SC were called for interview. Their candidatures were considered by the Selection Committee. The only candidate of the SC was not found suitable against the reserved vacancy. On the contrary an advertisement was issued on 11.10.89. The petitioner, Shri M.C. Sharma and 7 other candidates of general category and one belonging to SC were called for interview. Their candidatures were considered by the Selection Committee. The only candidate of the SC was not found suitable against the reserved vacancy. Shri M.C. Sharma was found suitable by the Committee and, therefore, an offer of appointment was sent to him vide letter dated 5.6.90. Since the petitioner was not found suitable by the Committee for regular appointment, his service was dispensed-with by order dated 5.6.90. The Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with the provision contained in Rule 8(iii) of 1980 Rules. The petitioner never made a grievance regarding the composition of the Selection Committee. 5. Regarding the earlier Civil Suit it has been stated that before a temporary injunction was granted, the petitioner stood relieved from his service. A detailed reply was filed and thereafter the petitioner withdraw the suit. In his application dated 25.8.90 the petitioner made a mention that the Corporation had agreed to take him back on duty and the final decision has been taken for the continuity of service. This statement was absolutely incorrect. No such assurance was ever given to him. The petitioner was asked to clarify this position., There upon, the petitioner submitted an application in his own hand writing stating that he had filed application in the Court on the advise of the counsel and no assurance of continuity of service was given to him. He agreed to be taken back on duty on the terms and conditions specified in the order dated 23.4.1990 and also agreed to submit application for extra ordinary leave. Thereafter the petitioner was allowed to come on duty on 1.9.90. The matter regarding regularisation of the service of the petitioner was placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 6.11.1990. The petitioner's candidature was considered by the Board but he was not found suitable for regularisation and, therefore, it was decided to terminate his service. Merely because the petitioner has continued in service on temporary/adhoc basis, he can not get a right to be regularised because he was not found suitable by the Selection Committee when the selection was held in the year 1990. The vacancies which are available in the Corporation are meant to be filled from amongst the members of SC/ST. Merely because the petitioner has continued in service on temporary/adhoc basis, he can not get a right to be regularised because he was not found suitable by the Selection Committee when the selection was held in the year 1990. The vacancies which are available in the Corporation are meant to be filled from amongst the members of SC/ST. The respondent has come-out with case that the petitioner has no right to continue in service against the vacancies which are reserved for the members of SC/ST. The petitioner had faced competition in the year 1989-90 but was not selected. There is no provision in RSMDC Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1980 for regularisation of his service because the post of Junior Geologist is required to be filled 100% by direct recruitment. 6. The petitioner filed a Misc. Application on 25.6.1991. In this application he has stated that in the month of May, 1991 the respondent has advertised as many as four vacancies, two of them are meant for SC/ST candidates and other two are for general categories. Moreover, as per Office Order No.M - 2(38)261/91/1732 dated 15/17.5.1991 as many as six posts of Junior Geologists have been created. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 22.5.1991 the Corporation is going to fill up the vacancies by making recruitment. This is being done ignoring the case of the petitioner for regularisation although in case of Shri M.C. Sharma regularisation of service has been effected. He has also made a reference to the cases of Shri Sumnesh Sharma whose service has been regularised as Assistant Public Relation Officer vide order dated 8.1.1991.1 Similarly Shri Sanjay Sharma and Shri Sanjay Khanna who are holding the posts of Maintenance Engineers and Liason-cum-Information Officer, have been regularised. A number of other persons working as junior Assistant have also been regularised by order dated 21.2.1991. The petitioner has claimed that he has also not been given the benefit of pay in the regular pay scale. 7. A reply to this application has been filed on July, 12, 1991 by the respondent Corporation. In its reply the respondent Corporation has reiterated its*stand that mere continuance on adhoc basis does not entitle the petitioner to claim regularisation. It has been admitted that after filing of the reply six posts of junior Geologists have been created by order dated 15/17.5.1991. In its reply the respondent Corporation has reiterated its*stand that mere continuance on adhoc basis does not entitle the petitioner to claim regularisation. It has been admitted that after filing of the reply six posts of junior Geologists have been created by order dated 15/17.5.1991. Of these two are general category vacancies, two for SC and two for ST categories. In the advertisement dated 22.5.91 two general vacancies has been notified. The petitioner has also submitted his application and his candidature will be considered in pursuance to that advertisement. In all 122 applications have been received and the Corporation found that about 50% are eligible. The petitioner will be called for regular selection as and when interviews are held. 8. The respondent was directed to produce the relevant record and that has been placed by the respondent for. Court's perusal. This record shows that the petitioner had been given purely temporary appointment an4 his service was terminated on 5.6.90. This termination was precedent by a recommendation of Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of making appointment on the posts of Junior Geologists which were advertised by the. respondent Corporation. The petitioner was one of the applicants who had been called for interview before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee consisted of Shri O.P. Srivas tava Chief (Personal and Administra, on as Chairman, Shri M.L. Jhanwar, Director, C.S.I.(Member), Shri S.K. Patni, Senior Manager (P and D) (Member), Shri S.H. Arif, C.S.O. (representative of CME) and Shri L.N. Bhattacharjee, Manager (Pand A) (Member Secretary). The Board interviewed 9 candidates of general category who had appeared before it on 24.4.1990. One candidate namely shri Bamane Sanjay Kumar Mahadev (SC) was considered separately in the meetings held on 26.4.90. Shri M.C.Sharma and the petitioner who were holding the post on adhoc basis were amongst the competitors. Shri M.C. Sharma was placed at No.1 in the select list. The petitioner was not one amongst the selected candidates. The selection was made on the basis of merit and the names were arranged according to the marks secured by the candidates. Since the petitioner was not selected, his service was terminated. He filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner was not one amongst the selected candidates. The selection was made on the basis of merit and the names were arranged according to the marks secured by the candidates. Since the petitioner was not selected, his service was terminated. He filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. He did make an application before the Court for withdrawal of the suit with a stipulation that a final decision has been taken by the Corporation for his reinstatement in service with continuity of service. However, when he was asked to give an explanation, he gave in writing that no such assurance had been given. He agreed to be taken back in service with conditions stipulated in the order dated 20/23.4.90. It is also borne out from the record that in the year 1990 the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation took a policy decision for regularisation of a service of adhoc appointees. Cases of several candidates were considered for regularisation. In case of Shri K. Vikram, Project Manager (D.S.) a decision was taken not to continue the post because in view of the fact that dimension stones work was not entrusted to the Corporation in a significant measure and the performance of the Corporation in respect of dimensional stone interest also available with it had not been satisfactory. It was however, decided that Shri K. Vikram should be tried on some other post where his service could be effectively utilised. Regarding Shri Shivahare, Deputy Manager (I and R) it was decided to regularise the service from the date of adhoc appointment, Shri R.L. Tak and Shri C.P. Kothari who are substantive Junior Geologist who are holding the post of Deputy Manager (Quality Control) Senior Geologists. In their cases decision has been taken that these posts be treated as direct recruitment post and be filled-up by open advertisement. In case of the petitioner the following decisions was taken: "It was resolved that the adhoc appointment of Shri K.C.Sharma on the post of Junior Geologist be not regularised as there is no general vacancy and he was not found suitable from the Selection Committee for this post." 9. In case of the petitioner the following decisions was taken: "It was resolved that the adhoc appointment of Shri K.C.Sharma on the post of Junior Geologist be not regularised as there is no general vacancy and he was not found suitable from the Selection Committee for this post." 9. In case of Shri Sumnesh Sharma, Junior Manager (P and R), Shri Sanjay Sharma, (Maintenance Engineer), Shri K.D.S.Rajawat (Labour Welfare Officer), Shri Sanjay Khanna (Information and Liason Officer) and 9 Mines Foreman decision was taken to regularise their services. Of course in the case of Shri Sumnesh Sharma regularisation was made on the lower post of Assistant Public Relation Officer because he was appointed on adhoc basis on the post of then was promoted as Junior Manager (P and R) on adhoc basis. A separate decision was taken to regularise the services of several other persons on lower posts and for them order dated 21 .1991 was issued. 10. First contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's service was unlawfully terminated on 5.6.90 and he was subjected to discriminatory treatment. In the case of Shri M.C. Sharma a decision was taken to regularise his service. However, in the case of the petitioner decision was taken to terminate his service without any reason or rhyme. The management of the Corporation thus adopted double yardstick in judging the suitability of the petitioner on the one hand and Shri M.C. Sharma on the other hand. This submission has been countered by the learned counsel for the respondent, who has argued that the petitioner or Shri M.C. Sharma were not subjected to screening for regularisation. In fact a regular selection had been made and Shri M.C. Sharma was selected on the basis of merit because he was awarded highest marks by the selection committee. Four other candidates were placed in panel. Since the petitioner was not found suitable for appointment, the Corporation had no option but to terminate his service. 11. In my opinion the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is correct and deserves to be accepted. It is bom out from the record that no exercise for adjudging suitability for regularisation was undertaken by the Corporation in April, 1990. The vacancies had in fact been advertised and in all 10 candidates including one belonging to SC were interviewed. It is bom out from the record that no exercise for adjudging suitability for regularisation was undertaken by the Corporation in April, 1990. The vacancies had in fact been advertised and in all 10 candidates including one belonging to SC were interviewed. A duly constituted Selection Committee had assessed the performance of these candidates and then prepared a panel on the basis of merit. Shri M.C. Sharma was placed at No.1 in order of merit and consequently he was offered regular appointment as Junior Geologist in the service of the Corporation. When there was an open competition and the selections had been made on the basis of merit, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been subjected to discrimination can not be accepted. There is no allegation of bias or mala fide against any of the members of the Selection Committee. The petitioner never challenged the composition of the Selection Committee. He appeared before the Selection Committee for interview with open eyes. He did hake a challenge to the termination of his service which was brought about by order dated 5.6.90 but he withdrawn the suit subsequently. He cannot now turn round and say that the selection made in the year 1990 suffers from any infirmity. It is to be noted that no prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of the selection of 1990 or for quashing of the appointment order of Shri M.C. Sharma. Therefore, the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 12. The next question which requires determination is as to whether the petitioner has rightly been declared unsuitable for regularisation of service and also as to whether the respondent is justified in terminating his service by the impugned order dated 7.1.1991. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the reasons given for not regularising the petitioner's service are wholly irrelevant and contradictory. He argued that the petitioner's non selection in the year 1990 cannot be taken as basis for declaring him unsuitable for regularisation. That selection was made on the basis of merit. At the best it can be said that the petitioner was not found meritorious enough by the Selection Committee to be included in the merit list/select list. He argued that the petitioner's non selection in the year 1990 cannot be taken as basis for declaring him unsuitable for regularisation. That selection was made on the basis of merit. At the best it can be said that the petitioner was not found meritorious enough by the Selection Committee to be included in the merit list/select list. That can not however, lead to an inference that the petitioner is unsuitable for the post of Junior Geologist after he has rendered almost 5 years of service. He also argued that if no vacancy in the general category was available, when the Board had considered the candidature of the petitioner in November, 1990, there could have been no occasion for assessment of the suitability of the petitioner. Shri Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation on the other hand argued that when the petitioner had not been suitable by the Selection Committee, his right to continue in the service comes to an end. His service was terminated on 5.6.90 but on compassionate ground he was taken back in service. Now after consideration of his case the Board of Directors has found that he is not suitable for regularisation. The logical consequence of his not being found suitable for regularisation is the termination of service. According to Shri Rastogi the Board has not acted arbitrarily or unreasonably. The petitioner can not claim any constitutional or legal right to be regularised in service because there is no provision in RSMDC Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980 for regularisation of the service of adhoc appointees. 13. I have given my serious consideration to the rival submissions. In so far as the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that in the absence of provisions in the Rules for regularisation, the petitioner cannot claim a right that his service be regularised, it is sufficient to mention that the Rules of 1980 have been framed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The Board of Directors subsequently took a policy decision to regularise the services of employees belonging to various cadres. There is no impediment in any statute in taking of such decision by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation. The Board of Directors subsequently took a policy decision to regularise the services of employees belonging to various cadres. There is no impediment in any statute in taking of such decision by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation. No provision of law has been referred to before me on the basis of which it can be said the powers of the Board of Directors to take a decision in relation to the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation has been curtailed or restricted. Moreover, the Corporation has in fact undertaken an exercise for regularisation of the service of adhoc appointees in different cadres. It is, therefore, simply not open to the respondent Corporation to come out with the plea that the petitioner had no right to claim consideration for regularisation. Once the Corporation has itself undertaken the exercise of regularisation of various employees including the petitioner himself, it is not open to the respondent Corporation to advance an argument that the petitioner can not claim that he should be regularised in the service of the Corporation. 14. From the averments made in the writ petition, reply to writ petition and the record which has been placed before me it has become clear that when the petitioner's candidature was taken up for consideration for the purpose of regularisation, no vacancy in the general category was available against which the petitioner's service could be regularised. Obviously, there was hardly any occasion for the respondent Corporation to undertake an actual exercise for consideration of case of the petitioner for regularisation. Moreover, only other reason given for non regularisation of the petitioner's service is that he was not found suitable by the Selection Committee. Reference to the Selection Committee in this context is obviously to the Selection Committee of April, 1990. It is not the case of the respondent Corporation that the case of petitioner's candidature has been considered by some other Selection Committee and he has not been found suitable by the Selection Committee. Selection Committee which met in April, 1990 had considered the candidature of the eligible persons for selection on the basis of merit. The petitioner was not found meritorious enough by the Selection Committee to be included in the panel of the selected candidates. His service was terminated at that time. Th re after he was reinstated and continued in service on temporary/adhoc basis. The petitioner was not found meritorious enough by the Selection Committee to be included in the panel of the selected candidates. His service was terminated at that time. Th re after he was reinstated and continued in service on temporary/adhoc basis. It is not the case of the respondent Corporation that his service record contains any adversity after 1.9.90 i.e. the date of his reinstatement. In fact there is nothing in the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 6.11.1990 to show that the record of the petitioner was considered at the time of consideration of his case for regularisation. The mere fact that the petitioner was not adjudges meritorious and was thus not selected can not be taken as basis for concluding that the petitioner is unsuitable to be regularised in service. Selection by open market competition is made on the basis of merit and merit alone whereas regularisation of the service of existing adhoc employees is made on the basis of adjudgment of their suitability on the basis of performance, service record and length of service. Candidates are ordinarily not subjected to interview by the Screening Committee for the purpose of regularisation as is done and has been done in the case of selection by the Selection Committee on the basis of merit. Therefore, it is clear that the reason given for treating the petitioner as not fit for regularisation is not relevant and germane to the question of adjudgment of the suitability of the petitioner for the purpose of regularisation. Thus, on the both counts the decision taken by the Board of Directors not to regularise the service of the petitioner and to terminate his service can not be treated as correct. 15. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The order dated 7.1.1991 terminating the service of the petitioner is declared illegal and is hereby quashed. The respondent Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his service against one of the vacancies which have now become available. The Corporation should now consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of his record and performance and take a decision about regularisation of the service of the petitioner in the Corporation and pass appropriate order in this regard within a period of two months from the date of presentation copy of this order. The Corporation should now consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of his record and performance and take a decision about regularisation of the service of the petitioner in the Corporation and pass appropriate order in this regard within a period of two months from the date of presentation copy of this order. The Corporation shall not make appointment against one of the vacancies in the cadre of Junior Geologist till the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his service is reconsidered and a decision is taken by the Corporation. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******