JUDGMENT 1. 1. In all these writ petitions (details of which have been given in Schedule A annexed with this order) more or less common facts and questions of law are involved and therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. For the purpose of appreciation it will be profitable to refer the facts of some of the writ petitions which would cover all other writ petitions. 3. In writ petition No. 6351/90 Ram Pratap v. State of Raj , petitioner Ram Pratap has stated that he possesses qualifications of matriculation and his name was registered with the Employment Exchange. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. As per the special directions issued by the State Government for appointment of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes' in various Government services, the Government issued sanction for appointment of the petitioner as a class IV employee in the pay-scale 750-940 for a period of six months vide order dated 16.5.1990 issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur. He joined services on 18.5.1990. The order of appointment was issued by a competent authority. At that time the post of Chief Medical & Health Officer was held by Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore. The petitioner was paid his salary for the month of May, 1990. On 4.12.1990 he was told that his attendance will not be marked in future. The petitioner has asserted that he has learned about an order dated 30.11.1990 (Annexure 2) issued for termination of services of employees appointed between January, 1990 to June, 1990 by Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore. The petitioner has alleged that termination of his services is arbitrary, illegal, and unjustified. The appointment of the petitioner was in conformity with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment & Other Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Rules of 1963'). He was appointed against a clear vacant and duly sanctioned post and a non- availability certificate was issued prior to his appointment. The petitioner was in no way concerned with the case of which reference has been made in the order dated 30.11.1990. His appointment was by a competent authority and therefore in the garb of implementing the order passed by the High Court in earlier case, his services could not have been terminated. 4. The petitioner was in no way concerned with the case of which reference has been made in the order dated 30.11.1990. His appointment was by a competent authority and therefore in the garb of implementing the order passed by the High Court in earlier case, his services could not have been terminated. 4. In his additional affidavit dated 30.1.1991 the petitioner has stated that by order dated 8.10.1990 the Chief Medical & Health Officer Jaipur has given appointment to as many as 80 persons on part-time basis. That shows the availability of posts. Moreover, the Government has sanctioned large number of temporary posts vide letter dated 24.10.1989 (Annexure 4) issued by the Government in Medical & Health Department and addressed to the Director, Medical & Health Services. Similar sanction order was issued on 23.1.1990 (Annexure 5). The petitioner has also produced (Annexure 7) containing sanction letter and the details of the sanctioned community health centres in different districts and has asserted that a number of posts of Class IV employees are available in the Medical & Health Department. The petitioner has also made a reference to Government order dated 8/10.1.1989 whereby the Government has directed that employees, who are members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should not be removed from service and they should instead be (sent to the concerned Collector or General Administration Department for absorption elsewhere. 5. In reply to the writ petition the respondents have stated that the petitioner was not given appointment against any existing vacancy. Annexure 1 is a document, which was fabricated by some officials of the department in connivance with the then Chief Medical & Health Officer. In the previous batch of writ petitions, which were dismissed by the High Court by a Single Bench as well as by the Division Bench, Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore had himself given a statement that clear vacancies were not [existing. He was Officer-in-Charge in that case. Subsequently, when he came to occupy the post of Chief Medical & Health Officer, he himself gave large number of such appointments. Since the appointment of the petitioner was illegal, service of the petitioner had to be terminated. The Medical Department had issued non-availability certificate only for 11 vacancies. However, between 1.1.1990 to 31.1.1990 Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore made as many as 55 appointments. It has then to be ascertained that illegal and unlawful appointments made by Dr. Since the appointment of the petitioner was illegal, service of the petitioner had to be terminated. The Medical Department had issued non-availability certificate only for 11 vacancies. However, between 1.1.1990 to 31.1.1990 Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore made as many as 55 appointments. It has then to be ascertained that illegal and unlawful appointments made by Dr. Anand Narain Sharma and Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore cannot confer any right on the employees. Both have been suspended and criminal as well as departmental actions are contemplated against them. 6. In Writ Petition No. 6240/1990 Suraj Narain v. State of Raj. , the petitioner has stated that he is a member of Scheduled Castes. He is registered with the Employment Exchange. He was appointed as a Class IV employee on temporary basis for six months by an order dated 3.3.1990 issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur. The Secretary Medical and Health Department had issued directions on 26.11.1990 to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur for termination of services of all the 118 persons who were given irregular appointments. The petitioner has further stated that on 16.11.1990 Dr. S.S. Mathur of the Directorate of Medical & Health Services wrote a letter on 16.11.1989 to Shri R.S. Mittal, Deputy Secretary, Medical & Health Department stating that about 2000 posts of class IV employees are vacant, and these posts were sanctioned in the category of class IV employees. In different hospitals 1300 ward boys and 200 peons including Farrash were required. A second letter dated 6.1.1990 was sent by the Director, Medical & Health Services to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur for appointment of existing daily wages class IV employees. A committee was constituted by Dr. G.S. Rathore vide his letter dated 12.1.1990. The committee was constituted of Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore, Dr. V.K. Tikkiwal and Dr. Awadesh Gupta. The committee was to meet on 15.1.1990. The Director Medical & Health Services also issued a circular on 15.1.1990 clarifying that a ban on appointments has been lifted and therefore appointments on regular basis be made against the vacant posts. It was also impressed on all the Chief Medical & Health Officers that existing daily wage employees be appointed on preferential basis. The Government also issued an order on 27.1.1990 removing the requirement of calling the names from Employment Exchange. It was also impressed on all the Chief Medical & Health Officers that existing daily wage employees be appointed on preferential basis. The Government also issued an order on 27.1.1990 removing the requirement of calling the names from Employment Exchange. The Government in Medical & Health Department conveyed sanction of 11 posts of sweepers/ward boys/ward mate to the Chief Medical & Health Officer vide letter dated 31.1.1990. The Committee constituted by the Chief Medical & Health Officer scrutinised the applications and after making selections appointments were made by the Chief Medical & Health Officer. 7. The petitioner has alleged that the action of termination of his services is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'), Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Further case of the petitioner is that he had been selected by a competent authority/selection body prior to this appointment and therefore there is no justification in terminating his services particularly when regular vacant posts are available in Chief Medical & Health Office, Jaipur. 8. In reply to the writ petition the respondents have asserted that Dr. Anand Narain Sharma was working as Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur between July, 1989 to 6th September, 1990. During his tenure he appointed as many as 64 persons as class IV employees without the availability of vacancies and without job requirement. When these unlawful appointments came to the knowledge of the administration, Dr. Anand Narain Sharrna was suspended and the case was referred to the Anti-corruption Department. The case is under investigation. Services of these 64 employees were terminated by the successor in office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur, namely, Dr. G.S. Rathore. The order dated 6.9.1989 issued by Dr. G.S. Rathore was challenged in several writ petitions filed before High Court at Jaipur Bench. These writ petitions were heard and dismissed on June 22,1990 (vide S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3857/89- Hanuman Prasad v. State of Rajasthan and others and connected writ petitions) . The Court while dismissing the writ petitions gave a direction for making payment of salary to the petitioners. D.B. Special Appeals were filed. These writ petitions were heard and dismissed on June 22,1990 (vide S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3857/89- Hanuman Prasad v. State of Rajasthan and others and connected writ petitions) . The Court while dismissing the writ petitions gave a direction for making payment of salary to the petitioners. D.B. Special Appeals were filed. They were decided by a Division Bench on 12.9.1990 (vide D.B. Special Appeal No. 193/90 Kailash Chand v. State and others and connected Special Appeals) . Thereafter Dr. G.S. Rathore, who remained Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur between 7.9.1989 to 27.6.1990 himself appointed 130 persons as Class IV employees without availability of vacancies,' without sanction, without budgetary provisions and without following Rules. He also appointed 300 persons on daily wage basis and on part-time basis. When the facts of these appointments came to the notice of the State Government, the Director Medical & Health Services appointed a high powered committee consisting of Dr. M.M. Gogna, Additional Director; Dr. Shanker Lal, Chief Medical & Health Officer; Shri Sumati Chand Jain, Assistant Accounts Officer. This committee submitted its report on 1.10.1990 and found large scale irregularities in the making of these appointments. The Director Medical & Health Services referred the matter to the Government on 17.10.1990 with his comments. The Government then considered the matter and passed an order on 27.10.1990 suspending Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore and further directed that an inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 be held against him. Two more persons, namely, Shri Gordhan Lal Jain Office Assistant-cum-Establishment incharge and Shri Govind Narain Meena, UDC, who dealt with the appointments were also suspended on 25.11.1990. The Government also took a decision to terminate the services of all employees appointed illegally. The services of daily wagers and part-timers were terminated on 31.8.1990 and those appointed in regular scale were terminated on 30.11.1990. Regarding the letters dated 16.11.1989, 6.1.1990 and 29.1.1990 it has been stated by the respondents that the letter written by Dr. S.S. Mathur on 16.11.1989 is not based on correct facts. No vacancy existed in Jaipur District on 16.11.1989. This fact is borne out by a subsequent letter dated 12.12.1990 written by the Director, Medical & Health Services. Other documents do not show the * availability of vacancies. The so called selection committee constituted by Dr. S.S. Mathur on 16.11.1989 is not based on correct facts. No vacancy existed in Jaipur District on 16.11.1989. This fact is borne out by a subsequent letter dated 12.12.1990 written by the Director, Medical & Health Services. Other documents do not show the * availability of vacancies. The so called selection committee constituted by Dr. G.S. Rathore in fact died *01 meet to make selections. The letters regarding preference be given to the existing, class IV employees are in conformity with the Rules. The respondents have lastly asserted that when appointments were made by playing fraud, the Court will not interfere with the action taken by the competent authority. The respondents also filed an application dated 15.2.1991 and have placed on record documents in pursuance of the directions given by the Court. In this application it has been stated that part-time employees are being engaged for fixed hours to do particular job in Dispensaries like cleaning and serving water. Payments to such employees are made out of contingencies. Details of 118 persons have been given, to whom the appointments were given by Dr. G.S. Rathore between 1.1.1990 to 7.6.90. Copies of statements of Dr. B.R. Khatri, Dr. V.K. Tikkiwal, and Dr. Awadesh Gupta have also been filed in which it has been stated by these doctors that they had not taken part in actual process of selection. 9. In Writ petition No. 6156/90 in Salamat Ali v. State of Rajasthan the facts are more or less similar to writ petition No. 6240/90. Reply is also similar. However, in this writ petition a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. In his rejoinder he has stated that as per zone-plan budget strength statement of 1989-90, 23 posts of class IV employees were vacant in the office of the Chief Medical & Health Office. In support of this assertion Annexure 9 dated 17.12.1989 has been filed on record. 180 posts of ward boys were sanctioned for Primary Health Centres in non-tribal area division vide Government Order dated 12.4.1989 written by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Medical & Health Department to the Director Medical & Health Services Rajasthan Jaipur. 20 posts were sanctioned for 5 Primary Health Centres in tribal area divisions. In each Primary Health Centre 4 ward boys are required to be employed as per the guidelines of the Government. 20 posts were sanctioned for 5 Primary Health Centres in tribal area divisions. In each Primary Health Centre 4 ward boys are required to be employed as per the guidelines of the Government. Total 300 posts were created and sanctioned by the Government in Medical and Health Department. For this purpose reference has been made to Annexure 12. 9 posts of Class IV employees became available on account of superannuation of the existing staff. In support of this assertion Annexures 13 & 14 have been placed on record. The Government vide its letter dated 31.12.1989 conveyed Government sanction for opening of Primary Health Centres. One Primary Health Centre was sanctioned vide Government letter dated 1.12.1989 (Annexure l6). Vide Government letter dated 9.1.1990 sanction for creation for 7 Primary Health Centres in Jaipur District was conveyed. A number of posts of ward-boys in class IV cadre have thus become available and the respondents have filed a wrong affidavit before this Hon'ble Court stating that the posts of ward-boys are not available. The petitioner has also asserted that 7 persons were promoted as LDCs from amongst class IV employees. The Director, Medical & Health Services conveyed sanction for creation of 3 new Primary Health Centres in Jaipur District and therefore, 12 posts of ward-boys came into being. For several years vacancies reserved for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have not been filed. The petitioner also asserted that as per Government instructions contained in letter dated 13.1.1990,35 daily wage employees were recruited on regular basis. 10. In Writ Petition No. 6450/90 Shri Ram Saini v. State of Rajasthan and others the petitioner has stated that he belongs to a poor family. He was engaged on daily wage basis by order dated 2.6.1989 of the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur. By order dated 26.3.1990 he was given appointment in regular pay scale for a period of six months. He has been discharging his duties faithfully and sincerely. The Chief Medical & Health Officer Dr. Shanker Lal did not have good relations with his predecessor-in-office Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore. Their relations are strained. Therefore, as soon as Shanker Lal took over as Chief Medical & Health Officer he started harassing class IV employees who were duly employed by Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore. Dr. The Chief Medical & Health Officer Dr. Shanker Lal did not have good relations with his predecessor-in-office Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore. Their relations are strained. Therefore, as soon as Shanker Lal took over as Chief Medical & Health Officer he started harassing class IV employees who were duly employed by Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore. Dr. Shanker Lal called the petitioner and other employees in the first week of October, 1990 and asked them to pay substantial amount in case they want to continue in service. They were threatened that in case of their failure to make payment, their services will be terminated. Since the petitioner failed to meet the demands of Dr. Shanker Lal, the latter started a conspiracy to get rid of persons like petitioner. He, in the first instance, made appointment of 80 persons on part-time basis. After about a month and half he issued an order dated 30.11.1990 for termination of services of various persons in the garb of the judgments of this Court dated 22.6.1990 and 12.9.1990. The petitioner has stated that over 2000 posts of class IV employees are lying vacant and notwithstanding this services of the petitioner and similarly situated persons have been terminated. 11. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition. The contents of this reply are more or less similar to the reply filed by the respondents in Writ Petition No. 6240/90. The additional points which have been taken in this reply are that the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 26.3.1990 was void and there is no justification even regarding his continuation on daily wage basis. Allegations made against Dr. Shanker Lal about animosity with Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore have been denied. A separate affidavit of Dr. Shanker Lal has been filed in which he has denied the allegations made against him qua Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore. He has asserted that both Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore and he belong to different places and they have not remained posted together at any time. With regard to daily wage appointments it has been alleged that appointments have been made keeping in view the requirement and in terms of the report of the Committee dated 6.10.1990. This report has been placed on record as Annexure 3/A alongwith this reply. A separate reply has also been filed by Dr. Shanker Lal in which he has denied the allegations made against him.12-13. This report has been placed on record as Annexure 3/A alongwith this reply. A separate reply has also been filed by Dr. Shanker Lal in which he has denied the allegations made against him.12-13. Record of the Government was summoned by the Court and Shri M.I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General placed files relating to creation of the posts of class IV employees, Government instructions regarding ban on appointments, relaxation of ban in favour of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and also the inquiry made in respect of the alleged irregularities committed in the making of appointments of Class IV employees by the Chief Medical & Health Officer. This record discloses a few important features of which reference is made as under (i) The Government vide its circular No. F. 9(1) Fin. 1(1) Inc. & Exp./83 dated 31.3.1989 and 29.6.1989 imposed ban on appointments. (ii) This ban was relaxed by Circular of even No. dated 27.12.1989 but it was made clear that for those posts, which do not come within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, before making appointments in accordance with the Rules, non-availability certificate should be obtained from the General Administration Department. By another circular dated 13.7.1989 directions were given by the Department not to create any post of class IV employee except for functional purpose and the posts becoming available by retirement were to be treated as abolished. A further direction was given to treat the vacant posts of Lower Division Clerks and Class IV employees which were lying vacant two years, as abolished and officers were directed not to fill these posts. (iii) The Director, Medical & Health Services issued order dated 15.1.1990 in the light of the Government circular dated 27.12.1989 and ordered that regular appointments of class IV employees be made in accordance with the Rules, and further directed that no appointment be made henceforth on daily wage basis. The Director, Medical & Health Services has also on his part forwarded a list of 25 persons for making appointments on regular basis of those employees, who were working on daily wage basis. The Chief Medical & Health Officer vide his letter dated 20.1.1990 wrote back to the Director, Medical & Health Services that as per discussions, 5 persons, who were working on daily wage basis, have been retained for consideration for appointment as class IV employees. The Chief Medical & Health Officer vide his letter dated 20.1.1990 wrote back to the Director, Medical & Health Services that as per discussions, 5 persons, who were working on daily wage basis, have been retained for consideration for appointment as class IV employees. The remaining 19 daily wage were being sent for appointment in other districts. Regarding Johari Lal it was stated that his certificates were not received. (iv) The Directorate of Medical & Health Services did write to the Government for creation of posts and for filling up these posts but no final decision for creation of posts was taken. (v) The Government did give sanction of 180 posts of ward-boys as would appear from letter No. F. 11(46) MPF1/88/Gr. II dated 12.4.1989 written by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Medical & Health Department Jaipur to the Director, Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur but it was made clear that the posts of ministerial and class IV employees shall not be filled without prior sanction of the Finance Department. It is also borne out from the record that the Government did sanction creation of Primary Health Centres at various places and there could be anticipation of creation of some posts of Class IV employees but there is no material on record to show that such posts had in fact been created. (vi) It is also borne out from the record that several irregularities have been committed in making of appointments to class IV employees and different functionaries of the Government, other than competent authority issued directions for appointment of class IV employees, daily wage employees or part-time employees. (vii) In respect - of the alleged irregularities committed in the making of appointment of class IV employees Dr. G.S. Rathore had sent a D.O. letter dated 5.10.1989 to the Joint Director, Medical & Health Services. In that D.O. letter he specifically found that no advertisement to fill the posts had been issued and without the availability of the vacant posts appointments have been made. The files had not been prepared, qualifications had not been checked, the no-objection certification had not been obtained. (viii) The Committee headed by Dr. M.M. Gogna submitted a detailed report. In its report the Committee recorded that in all 11 posts were vacant under the Chief Medical & Health Officer and sanction of the Government was conveyed vide letter dated 30.1.1990. (viii) The Committee headed by Dr. M.M. Gogna submitted a detailed report. In its report the Committee recorded that in all 11 posts were vacant under the Chief Medical & Health Officer and sanction of the Government was conveyed vide letter dated 30.1.1990. Although the Chief Medical & Health Officer had written on 15.2.1990 for creation of sanction to fill 15 posts of class IV servants/ ward-boys but such sanction was not conveyed. Before making appointments the vacancies were not determined. Non-availability certificate had not been obtained. The applications were not invited. The particulars regarding age, academic qualifications etc. were not examined. The Committee was not constituted as required by the directions of the Director, Medical & Health Services. 50 appointments were made even before the receipt of non- availability certificate. Register containing particulars of receipt of the applications, as well as the register in which the despatch entries of orders of appointment have been made were not available. Two Committees were constituted by Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore. Some appointments were even issued before the meeting of the first Committee which was held on 15.1.1990. This report was forwarded to the Government by the Director, Medical and Health Services along with his letter dated 17.10.1990 and thereafter the order dated 30.11.1990 was issued under the instructions of the Government. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners have raised manifold submissions in these writ petitions. They have argued that appointment orders were issued by the competent authority after following the procedure prescribed under the Rules for making regular appointments. Such appointments must be treated as substantive appointments and the petitioner acquired vested rights to continue in service and in any case they had acquired a legal expectancy to continue in service against the available posts. Vacant posts were available and against these vacant posts appointments have ,been made on the recommendations of the committee. Even if there were some irregularities in the making of such appointments, the petitioners cannot be held as usurpers of the posts. Once the competent authority had issued the orders of appointment, the Government and its functionaries were bound by the action of the competent authority. It has further been argued that the orders have been issued in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Once the competent authority had issued the orders of appointment, the Government and its functionaries were bound by the action of the competent authority. It has further been argued that the orders have been issued in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. There has been violation of the provisions contained in Section 25F & 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). There has been no fraud, collusion, and misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners and therefore they cannot be made to suffer on account of alleged irregularity. Shri R.K. Sharma, one of the learned counsels argued that the petitioner belonged to the lower strata in the society. The constitutional provisions give them special protection. The Government was required to make provisions for reservation in favour of the members of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes. Instead of giving benefit to the members of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes they have been deprived of the appointments. Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners in some writ petitions argued that there was no ban against appointments, therefore, the competent authority made appointments after regular selections and no exception could have been taken in respect of such appointments. He further argued that ever if the appointments are treated as illegal it was incumbent upon the respondents to have followed the principles of natural justice and also to comply with the mandatory provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as well, as Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Shri Man Singh, learned counsel for some other petitioners argued that appointments of the petitioners must be treated as one having been made under Rules 18 of the Rules, 1963 which relate to urgent temporary appointments. The petitioners were appointed against the quota meant for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Government had itself given relaxation in making of appointments, in order to fulfil its constitutional obligations to protect the interest of the backward classes and weaker section of the society. Shri Man Singh then argued that the reasons given in the order of termination are absolutely untenable in law. No formality was required to be fulfilled for making of appointments. The non-availability was not required to be obtained. Likewise sponsorship from Employment Exchange was not required. Shri Man Singh then argued that the reasons given in the order of termination are absolutely untenable in law. No formality was required to be fulfilled for making of appointments. The non-availability was not required to be obtained. Likewise sponsorship from Employment Exchange was not required. The appointments had been made in accordance with the Rules of 1963 and the posts were very much available He drew the attention of the Court to the Government circular dated 29.8.1989 by which directions were given for filling up of back log of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes employees. Shri Man Singh then argued that employment has today become an industry. Successive Chief Medical & Health Officers have played fraud with the public. Even Dr. Shanker Lal, who has been impleaded as party by name has made 80 appointments on part-time basis. Shri Man Singh then urged that this Court must interfere with the order of termination in order to protect the rights of livelihood of the petitioners which is guaranteed by virtue of Article 21 read with Article 39(a) and 41 of the Constitution of India. He further argued that the termination of service of the petitioners is in clear violation of Rule 23A of the : Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and therefore, liable to be declared as void. Lastly he ; submitted that the Government should adjust these persons against available posts, Shri Narendra Jain argued that when the petitioner has completed 240 days it is I obligatory on the respondents to have complied with the provisions of Section 25P of the Act of 1947. Without compliance of this mandatory requirement the order of termination is void abinitio.15. Shri R.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that Dr. Shanker Lal had acted with malice, which is writ large on the face of the record. He first manipulated appointment of 80 part-time employees and then brought about . termination of services of the petitioners on the ground of alleged irregularities in 'making of appointments. Shri Lodha strongly relied on the allegations of mala fide levelled against Dr. Shanker Lal Sharma. He farther argued that the grounds given for termination of services are irrelevant and they constitute stigma. The order is, therefore, an order of punishment and without a regular enquiry the petitioners could not have been penalised. Shri Lodha strongly relied on the allegations of mala fide levelled against Dr. Shanker Lal Sharma. He farther argued that the grounds given for termination of services are irrelevant and they constitute stigma. The order is, therefore, an order of punishment and without a regular enquiry the petitioners could not have been penalised. He further argued that a number of petitioners were been already in employment as daily wages and part-time employees. They were subsequently given regular pay-scale and now they have been deprived of every thing. While they have been left high and dry, part-time engagement has been given to some other persons who are junior to the petitioners in length of time.16. Shri Y.C. Sharma argued that a number of posts had been sanctioned. He made detailed reference to Annexures 10 to 14 filed with the rejoinder in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6156/90. All the learned counsels submitted that non-payment of salary to the petitioners for the period for which the appointments of the petitioners lasted can in no manner be justified.17. Mr. Mahesh Gupta, who is counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 3601/91 to 3642/91 submitted that in its order dated 12.9.1990 in the appeals filed , against the judgment dated 22.6.1990, the Division Bench has observed that the petitioner-appellants in those writ petitions should .be given preferential treatment in the matter of appointment and yet the petitioners have been deprived of preferential treatment when the appointments have been given by Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore to about 100 persons and if the correct facts had been placed before the High Court, the Court would have given relief to his clients in the previous writ petitions. Now the threat of termination of services of the petitioners is looming large on their heads.18. Other learned counsels, who appeared on behalf of the different petitioners adopted the arguments of Shri P.K. Sharma, S.K. Jain, Man Singh, Narendra Jain, R.M. Lodha and Y.C. Sharma.19. Shri M.I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri K.S. Rathore argued that the appointments of the petitioners were in clear violation of the provisions contained in Rules of 1963. Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore manipulated these appointments without the availability of vacancies. Despite the specific Government directions to the contrary, Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore made back door entries. Shri M.I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri K.S. Rathore argued that the appointments of the petitioners were in clear violation of the provisions contained in Rules of 1963. Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore manipulated these appointments without the availability of vacancies. Despite the specific Government directions to the contrary, Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore made back door entries. The members of the two committees in fact did not apply their mind at a joint meeting. The statements of three doctors clearly show that entire management was made by Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore at his own level. No sanction of the Finance Department has been obtained for filling these posts. They argued that the orders of termination have been passed because the appointment orders were void abinitio. The Court will not protect the illegalities committed in the making of appointments. Shri Khan argued that the provisions of Section 25F cannot be attracted because the petitioners had in fact not worked and in any case when such grave irregularities have been committed, the provisions of Section 25F cannot be resorted to for giving relief to the petitioners. Regarding daily wage appointments Shri Khan argued that the part-time engagements had to be given in order to render necessary services. Learned Additional Advocate General lastly submitted that the salary of the petitioners will be paid by the Government for the period during which their appoint subsisted.20. The first question which requires determination is as to whether the petitioners have been deprived of any right by virtue of termination of the services in pursuance of the Government's decision contained in the letter dated 26.11.1990 and the subsequent orders passed by the Chief Medical & Health Officer on 31.11.1990 or relieving orders passed by the concerning authorities. The facts which have been brought on record by the rival parties clearly show that sanction for appointment against 11 vacancies of ward-boys/ward-mates etc. was conveyed by the Government vide letter dated 30.1.1990. Even before this sanction was communicated, Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore issued orders of appointments in favour of large number of persons. The facts which have been brought on record by the rival parties clearly show that sanction for appointment against 11 vacancies of ward-boys/ward-mates etc. was conveyed by the Government vide letter dated 30.1.1990. Even before this sanction was communicated, Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore issued orders of appointments in favour of large number of persons. It is true that the Government did sanction creation of Primary Health Centres and there might be requirement of personnel in class IV cadre at these Primary Health Centres and it is also true that some orders were issued by the Central Government in 1989 purporting to create posts in class IV services but it is more than evident that these posts were not filled in 1989 because of lack of sanction by the Finance Department which was condition precedent for filling these posts. Without the availability of sanctioned posts, Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore or for that reason any other person had no authority to make appointment in class IV service. Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct in submitting that the appointment orders have been issued by a competent authority but mere competence of the authority to issue orders of appointment is not conclusive for holding that the competent authority could issue orders of appointment even without the availability of vacancy. Availability of vacant post or a vacancy in the cadre constitute condition precedent for exercise of power of appointment by a competent authority. Even a mere financial sanction or budgetary provision does not entitled the competent authority to make appointment.21. In State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Kumar Rawat & Others : 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 268 , while reversing a decision of the Division Bench of a High Court, the Supreme Court held: "Financial provision in the budget is made on the basis of the anticipated expenditure planned on the basis of expected requirements of the different department of government. Approval of a lump sum amount in the budget to"Financial provision in the budget is made on the basis of the anticipated expenditure planned on the basis of expected requirements of the different department of government. Approval of a lump sum amount in the budget to meet expenditure under the head of salary by the legislature does not amount to creation of posts and administrative orders would still be necessary for creating the posts unless they are continuing from before. Approval of a lump sum amount in the budget to meet expenditure under the head of salary by the legislature does not amount to creation of posts and administrative orders would still be necessary for creating the posts unless they are continuing from before. Making of a provision in the budget will not make it obligatory for the State Government to fill up the vacancies and even if there be a failure on the part of the State Government to do so, no writ can be issued to the Government to fill up the posts." In the present case it is absolutely clear that administrative sanction for filling only 11 vacancies has been communicated on 30.1.1990. Therefore, the action of Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore in making large number of appointments was clearly beyond his jurisdiction.22. Learned counsel for the petitioners have laid much emphasis on the various letters exchanged between the Directorate of Medical & Health Services and the Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, regarding the need of the posts and personnel of Class IV services for running the Primary Health Centres etc. The impression which one gathers from perusal of various documents is that there is a requirement of personnel in class IV cadre. But mere necessity of the posts by itself is not sufficient for authorising a competent authority to make appointments without the availability of vacancies. In Ramji Lal Raigar and another v. State of Rajasthan and others D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 149/90 and 51 other Special Appeals decided on 12.9.1990 the Division Bench of which I was a member, had taken note of the ; applications filed on behalf of the appellants under order 41 rule 27, Civil Procedure Code and observed that in the letter dated 12.4.1989 itself the Government had while creating the posts specifically laid down that prior clearance of the Government will be necessary before making of the appointments. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that the circular of the Government issued in July, 1990 does not entitle the competent authority to fill the posts without the availability of vacancies. Thus, in my opinion, the correspondence exchanged between the departmental authorities for requirement of posts and personnel did not authorise the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur to issue orders of appointment of the petitioners in regular pay-scale.23. Thus, in my opinion, the correspondence exchanged between the departmental authorities for requirement of posts and personnel did not authorise the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur to issue orders of appointment of the petitioners in regular pay-scale.23. Apart from the lack of availability of clear vacancies, it is clear from the report of 4 Member Committee that the posts were not advertised. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur did not send any requisition to the Employment Exchange. He did constitute two committees for making recruitment for appointment on class IV posts but some appointments were made even before the date fixed for meeting of the committees.' The members of the committee have made categorical statements that no real meeting of the committee took place and no selection was made. The procedure for making recruitment on class IV posts is prescribed in the Rules of 1963 and the then Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur gave a short shrift to the scheme of the Rules of 1963 in issuing appointment orders. The very illegalities which were pointed out by him in making of appointments by Dr. Anand Narain Sharma were repeated by Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore. It is true that for members of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes the Government had relaxed the ban and had dispensed with the requirement of requisition from the Employment Exchange and it is also true that the policy of the Government to fill the back log of vacancies meant for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but nevertheless it was obligatory for the Chief Medical & Health Officer to have followed the Rules of 1963 and to have made selections for appointment in tune with the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India by giving opportunity of the consideration to all eligible members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was not open to the Chief Medical & Health Officer to have treated recruitment to the public services his personal affair and to have disturbed the largesse in the form of appointments at his sweet will or discretion, whim or caprice. Public employment is not a private affair of an individual officer or competent authority. It was not open to the Chief Medical & Health Officer to have treated recruitment to the public services his personal affair and to have disturbed the largesse in the form of appointments at his sweet will or discretion, whim or caprice. Public employment is not a private affair of an individual officer or competent authority. The people have reposed trust in the competent authorities in the expectation that they would abide by the rule of law and discharge their duties in conformity with the constitutional dictates. No-one howsoever high he may be in hierarchy of the Government can treat the public employment or recruitment to public services as his private affair or his homely affair. The procedure adopted by the Chief Medical & Health Officer in the present case on the face of its smacks of arbitrariness and wanton lack of regard for the equality clause contained in the Constitution.24. I may now deal with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the termination of the services of the petitioners has been brought about in violation of the principles of natural justice. Their contention is that as a result of the impugned order the petitioners have been deprived of their right to continue in service. They have been deprived of the source of livelihood and the impugned orders had serious adverse civil consequences. However, before issuing the orders of termination the petitioners have not been given any action oriented notice and have not been given opportunity of hearing. If such a notice had been given the petitioners would have demonstrated that their appointments are perfectly legal and that no irregularity has been committed by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur. The orders issued regarding termination of the services of the petitioners make a reference to the fact that Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore made appointments between January, 1990 to June, 1990 without the availability of sanctioned posts/vacant posts and without obtaining non-availability certificate from the Government and that the High Court has in its order dated 20.6.1990 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition 3857/89 and order dated 12.9.1990 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 149/1990 has upheld the termination of services of employees irregularly appointed and that the appointments made by Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore arev not only illegal but there is no work and no vacant posts for these employees, and therefore, their services are terminated. Gulab Singh Rathore arev not only illegal but there is no work and no vacant posts for these employees, and therefore, their services are terminated. It is correct that reference to the requirement of non-availability certificate was not a relevant consideration, which could have legitimately been taken into consideration. But that is not the end of the matter. The Government had found that the appointments made by Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore were in clear violation of the provisions of the Rules of 1963 and there were several irregularities in making of these appointments. The Government also took note of the fact that vacancies were not even available. This decision was arrived at by the Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the 4. member committee headed by Dr. M.M. Gogna, which was forwarded to the Government by the Director, Medical & Health Services alongwith his recommendations. It is also true that the departmental enquiry against Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore will ultimately determine as to whether Dr. Rathore had indulged in any act of corruption in making these appointments but the Government was in my opinion perfectly justified in taking note of the fact that the appointments have been made without availability of sanctioned posts. The Government was also fully justified in taking note of the earlier decision of this Court to which reference has been made hereinabove. The facts of these cases are so glaring that no right can be said to have been conferred on the basis of the .orders of appointment issued by Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore in their favour. Admittedly, Dr. Rathore was instrumental in pointing out the irregularities committed by Dr. Anand Narain Sharma in making appointments without the availability of vacant posts. That led to termination of services of 64 persons appointed by Dr. Anand Narain Sharma and within a few months of that, Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore issued appointment orders without the availability of vacant posts. On the basis of such illegal orders of appointment no right can be said to have been conferred on the petitioners and it cannot with any element of justification be argued that the impugned action of termination of their services have affected their vested rights, legal or constitutional and that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. Principle of natural justice cannot be put in any strait jacket formula. Principle of natural justice cannot be put in any strait jacket formula. Application of this principle cannot be uniform and every action/order cannot be declared as void merely on the plea that opportunity of hearing was not given. Even cases where opportunity of hearing is not given, the Court cannot issue a writ once it is found that the very order on which a right is claimed by a person was void. Similar view has been expressed by S.C. Agrawal, J., (as he then was) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 648/86 Hanuman Sahai Raigar v. State of Rajasthan and others and 12 connected writ petitioners decided on August 26, 1986. That was a case in which orders of appointment were issued by a person, who was not duly authorised. There too its was found that the orders of appointment were not issued and despatched in the Despatch Register and the office copies were not retained. No advertisement had been issued for the posts. No application have been submitted and no interviews were held. In this case also the facts which have been established are that appointments made in 1989 by Dr. Anand Narain Sharma without the availability of vacant posts were declared unlawful and services of the employees were terminated. Writ Petitions filed before a Single Bench were dismissed and the Special Appeals were also dismissed. During the pendency of litigation in that batch of writ petitions, Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore proceeded to issue orders without the availability of vacant posts, without sanction (except regarding 11 posts which was issued on 30.1.1990), without advertisement of posts and without any selection. The documents of the applicants are not available in the record of the office of the Chief Medical & Health Officer. Even the inward and despatch registers are missing. Reference has been made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Council and others : AIR 1986 SC 180 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. That was a case in which the question of eviction of Pavement Jwellers was under consideration before the Supreme Court. Reference has been made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Council and others : AIR 1986 SC 180 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. That was a case in which the question of eviction of Pavement Jwellers was under consideration before the Supreme Court. In the context of Article 21 of the Constitution of India it was held by the Supreme Court that the Pavement Jewellers were entitled to be heard before being evicted because the eviction from dwellings resulted in deprivation of their livelihood. The right to livelihood has-not been incorporated as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution of India. Although the directive principles of State Policy enjoins on the State to make effective provision for securing employment but that has to be within limits of its economic capacity and development. At any rate where it is found as a matter of fact that the employment was given to a person on the basis of an order of appointment which is wholly illegal. This Court cannot by issuing a writ restore such employment. No writ can possibly be issued by the Court for restoration of an order of appointment which is found by the Court to be unlawful. A writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued only for enforcement of rights, constitutional or legal or for setting aside an arbitrary order but this power cannot be extended and used for restoration of illegalities. In this context it would be enough to refer a judgment of 5 judges of the High Court in Jagan Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal : AIR 1980 Rajasthan 1 . Similar view has been expressed in Dr. M.C. Mehta v. State of Rajasthan : 1972 WLN 661 .25. Next question calls for determination arises out of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that termination of services of the petitioners amount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947. Termination of the services of the employees who come within the definition of the term 'workman' could have been brought about only in conformity with the mandatory requirement of Section 25F and 25G of the Act of 1947. Termination of the services of the employees who come within the definition of the term 'workman' could have been brought about only in conformity with the mandatory requirement of Section 25F and 25G of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have completed more than 240 days of service and their services have been terminated without giving notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation. On that premise the termination of the services is liable to be void, argued learned counsel. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is factually not well founded in large number of cases because the petitioners have not shown as to how they have completed 240 days continuous service. Even in those cases where the petitioners have completed 240 days service, no relief can be given to the petitioners because no contract of employment has come into existence on the basis of orders passed in accordance with law. Contract of employment can come into existence only on the basis of the orders issued in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. Moreover, even if for a moment it is accepted that there has been a violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and the question of validity of appointment may not be relevant for the purpose of considering the question of violation of that provision of law, in my considered opinion it is not a case in which any relief of reinstatement can possibly be granted by the Court in the face of categorical finding about the grave illegality and irregularities committed by Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur in making appointments. The relief of reinstatement is not always given in all cases where it is found that termination of services has been brought about in violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. In Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal : AIR 1981 SC 422 the Apex Court has clearly held that relief of reinstatement can be denied in exceptional circumstances. The present case is one which shows that the exceptional circumstances of this case warrants denial of relief of reinstatement to the petitioners. In Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal : AIR 1981 SC 422 the Apex Court has clearly held that relief of reinstatement can be denied in exceptional circumstances. The present case is one which shows that the exceptional circumstances of this case warrants denial of relief of reinstatement to the petitioners. Firstly, the sanctioned vacant posts were not available for the petitioners and secondly, the appointments have been made in clear contravention of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as well as Rules of 1963. As has already been held earlier, the Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot pass an order which would result in restoration of an illegal order. Moreover, the direction which propose to give in those writ petitions would sufficiently compensate the petitioners. In this view of the matter decisions of this Court in Nand Lal v. State of Rajasthan : 1988(2) RLR 738 and Prabhu Dayal Jat v. Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd.: 1989(1) RLR 439 wherein Division Benches of this Court have held that where the termination of the services were in violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, the ground of validity of appointment is not relevant, are of no assistance to the petitioners. These judgments will have to be read in the light of the Division Bench order passed in Ramji Lal Raiger v. State of Rajasthan : D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 149/1990 decided on 12.9.1990 . Looked in that context in my opinion no order for reinstatement can be given. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the respondents should be directed to regularise, services of the petitioners even though irregularities might have been committed in their appointments. They have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority : AIR 1990 SC 2228 , Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation : AIR 1990 SC 371 , Halli Gowala v. Managing Director, I K.S.R.S.T.C.: AIR 1989 SC 1117 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rafiquddin : 1988(1) SLR 491 .26. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the same reasons, for which I have held that no right has been conferred on the petitioners on the basis of the order of appointment issued in their favour. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the same reasons, for which I have held that no right has been conferred on the petitioners on the basis of the order of appointment issued in their favour. Any order for regularisation of service would mean judicial stamping of irregularities committed by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur, against whom a departmental enquiry ; under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) i Rules, 1958 was contemplated. Once a finding of illegality is recorded by a Court, it is neither legal nor justified for this Court to give a direction for regularisation of the I services of the petitioners. The Court cannot give a direction which would perpetuate I an illegality committed by the respondent Chief Medical & Health Officer, earlier. No court can issue direction which will have effect of nullifying the constitutional provisions relating to equality. In none of the case on which the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance direction has been given by the Court for regularisation of the services of those appointees whose services have been terminated on account of illegality in their appointment or where the regularisation would result in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and statutory Rules which regulate recruitment to that service.27. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that many of the petitioners were employed as daily wagers or casual employees before being I appointed in regular pay scale. They have been deprived even of the appointment on daily wage basis or as casual employee. At the same time as many as 80 persons have been appointed as part-time employees. They urged that the petitioners should at least be adjusted as daily wage employees or part-time employees. In my opinion, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India empowers the Governor ,to enact Rules for regulating recruitment and conditions of service appointment in the service of the State. Several sets of statutory rules have been framed in exercise of this power. For recruitment of ministerial as well as class IV services also rules have been framed. Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India empowers the Governor ,to enact Rules for regulating recruitment and conditions of service appointment in the service of the State. Several sets of statutory rules have been framed in exercise of this power. For recruitment of ministerial as well as class IV services also rules have been framed. These Rules contain complete scheme for the purpose of making selections and appointments to the ministerial as well as class IV services in the State. Every competent, authority is under an obligation to follow these Rules strictly. That is the constitutional duty of such a competent authority. Last one decade has, however, seen multitude of cases in which the statutory rules have been flouted with Jimpunity and without any consequence upon the violaters of the Rules. Thousands of cases have been filed in the Courts of Law/Service Tribunals containing allegations of violation of Rules. Another development which has caused grave concern to the Courts is the methodology adopted by various authorities in giving appointment on daily wages or on part-time basis. For economy reasons the Government as a policy decided not to make regular recruitment and appointments against various posts. However, in order to carry the urgent work permissions were given to engage casual labour. However, the object of the Government to effect economy has been completely frustrated by thousands of appointments made in different departments by engaging daily wages employees or part-time employees. Even against the work of regular and permanent nature appointments on daily wages or part-time basis have been made. Innovative methods have been found to give a go-bye to the provisions of equality clause contained in the Constitution. For making such appointment on daily wages or on part-time basis neither the requisition is sent to the Employment Exchange nor any effort is made to give chance to the persons, who are really entitled to be given such appointments. Despite the fact that lacs of persons are registered with the different employment exchanges and long queue of meritorious persons wait in a hope of getting public employment, these long queues are ignored with contempt and by dubious methods a few favoured sneak into the arena of public employment. Employment is sought and given for various illegal considerations including money. Despite the fact that lacs of persons are registered with the different employment exchanges and long queue of meritorious persons wait in a hope of getting public employment, these long queues are ignored with contempt and by dubious methods a few favoured sneak into the arena of public employment. Employment is sought and given for various illegal considerations including money. Such appointments are first made for few days or months and then continued for such a period which enables the employee to claim* that he has completed 240 days of service. If the person making appointment was transferred, he usually asked the employee to approach a court of law and seek a restraint order that he might not be removed from service because he has completed 240 days of service. If termination is brought about by the successor-in-office, usually the mandatory requirement, of Section 25F & 25G are not complied with. Another side effect of such employment has been that those appointed on daily wage make a claim for grant of salary in the regular pay-scale. In the light of the new dimensions given to the concept of equality the Court has to enforce the principle of equal pay for equal work by issuing a direction that payment in the regular pay scale be made. Ultimately it is the public at large who is the sufferer. The State exchequer or the public revenue has to bear the burden of such illegal appointments. A large percentage of public money is to be spent in meeting the demand of such employees. This practice has given a rise to enormous corruption at different levels. There is a mad race amongst the younger generation to seek employment in Government services. This mad race is because of the feeling that security of the conditions of the service of the Government servants is unmatched. Once a person gets in the Government service he acquires all the rights without any regard to his duties and accountability to the public. Therefore, those, who cannot get employment in Government service or public service by competition and on merit seek employment by illegal means. Thus in whom the powers have been vested by the Rules are the beneficiaries. It is, therefore, high time that employment on daily wages or on part-time basis is brought to an end. Therefore, those, who cannot get employment in Government service or public service by competition and on merit seek employment by illegal means. Thus in whom the powers have been vested by the Rules are the beneficiaries. It is, therefore, high time that employment on daily wages or on part-time basis is brought to an end. Taking into consideration these uneasy developments, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners should at least be adjusted as daily wagers or on part-time basis.28. So far as the plea of mala fide of Dr. Shanker Lal is concerned, at the very out-set it must be observed that the only allegations levelled against Dr. Shanker Li are that he was having animosity and strained relations with Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore. These allegations have been denied by Dr. Shanker Lal, whose affidavit has been filed alongwith the reply of the respondents. Dr. Shanker Lal also chosen to file a separate reply. In that reply he has specifically denied the allegations of animosity and strained relations between him and Dr. Gulab Singh Rathore. No material has been placed by the petitioners to substantiate the allegations of mala fide levelled against Dr. Shanker Lal. Moreover, it is proved from the record that the decision with regard to termination of service of the petitioners has not been taken by the Government on the basis of recommendations made by 4 member committee headed by Dr. M.M. Gogna and the comments given by the then Director, Medical & Health Services. Thus the allegations of mala fide levelled against Dr. Shanker Lal have neither been proved nor can these allegations have the effect of vitiating the orders of termination of services of the petitioners.29. Argument raised by some of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding violation of Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is being mentioned only to be rejected summarily. Rule 23A as it stands after amendment, no more requires giving of a notice or pay in lieu thereof as a condition precedent to the . termination of services of a temporary employee. Therefore, mere violation of Rule 23A, as it stands after amendment, does not have the effect of rendering the order of termination as void.30. Rule 23A as it stands after amendment, no more requires giving of a notice or pay in lieu thereof as a condition precedent to the . termination of services of a temporary employee. Therefore, mere violation of Rule 23A, as it stands after amendment, does not have the effect of rendering the order of termination as void.30. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners which merit acceptance, in the light of the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General, is that the petitioners are entitled to be paid salary between the dates of payment of termination of service. Undoubtedly the petitioners' appointments have not been terminated with retrospective effect. Such orders could not have been made legally. Therefore, all the petitioners have a right to get salary for the period for which they have worked or will be deemed to have worked. They are also entitled to one month's wages as contemplated in the order of termination.31. These writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the following manner:- (1) Claim of the petitioners for quashing of the orders of termination of their services and for their reinstatement in service is rejected; (2) The respondents should, however, pay to the petitioners salary for the of tire period for which their appointments have subsisted. They shall also get one month's salary. This payment shall be made within a period of three months of submission of certified copy of this order; (3) The respondents should determine the vacancies in Class IV Service for the entire Medical & Health Department within a period of three months of the date of receipt of copy of this order and make regular appointments against these vacancies in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963. The respondents should take into account those vacancies against which casual or daily wage earners are working at present. Preference should be given in appointment to those candidates who were appointed as daily wagers or who were appointed on part-time basis. Those candidates, who were appointed on daily wages or on part-time basis, should be treated as within age limit for the purpose of being appointed afresh on the basis of vacancies determined as per the Court's direction; (4) The Government should not make appointment on daily wage basis in future. Those candidates, who were appointed on daily wages or on part-time basis, should be treated as within age limit for the purpose of being appointed afresh on the basis of vacancies determined as per the Court's direction; (4) The Government should not make appointment on daily wage basis in future. However, if any contingency easts or arises in future for specified work of short duration, Government may engage part-time employees or enter into agreement for appointment on contract basis, but such engagement should be done only to meet with the emergent situations and such engagement/appointment shall not continue beyond a period of three months; (5) The Government should expedite the enquiry in the matter of alleged irregularities in the making of appointments and the financial loss suffered by the Government shall be recovered from defaulting officers/employees. (6) Parties are left to bear their own costs. *******