JUDGMENT 1. :- By these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the validity of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959 on the ground that it is ultra vires to the Constitution of India and the same be struck down. 2. As all these writ petitions raise a common question of law, so they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the fact of D.B.C.W. Petition No. 979/90 are being taken into account. 3. The members of the petitioner-Sanghs (as per schedule) are trained persons having obtained training of B. Ed./B.S.T.C. The respondents invited applications for the post of Gr. III Teachers on temporary basis and in pursuance of which these persons applied for the same. A committee consisting of Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti and Vikas Adhikari took interview and ultimately they were given appointment vide order dated 18.9.1989 for a period of six months or till a duly selected person is available, whichever is earlier in the pay scale 880-1650 on temporary basis. Thereafter the respondents issued an advertisement by which 350 posts of Grade III Teachers were advertised in all the Panchayat Samities of District Chittorgarh. The last date of submitting the application was 27.10.1989. In pursuance of which hundreds of candidates applied for the post including the members of petitioner-Sangh. Interview was held from 12th to 27th Dec. 1989 wherein hundreds of candidates including the members of petitioner-Sangh were called. A committee consisting of the Zila Pramukh of Chittorgarh, a nominee of the Collector, Chittorgarh, the Executive Officer-cum Secretary of the Zila Parished and Senior Depty. District Education Officer, Chittorgarh was formed for interview and merit list of 317 candidates was issued on 25.1.90 by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh wherein names of 75 persons were mentioned for the Panchayat Samiti Arnod but the names of members of the petitioner. Sangh did not appear in the said merit list. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. This Court issued notice to show cause on 2.3.90 and also ordered that in the meanwhile the services of the persons mentioned in the Schedule annexed with the writ petition shall not be terminated. All the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule-A appended to this order have come up before us. 5. Mr. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. This Court issued notice to show cause on 2.3.90 and also ordered that in the meanwhile the services of the persons mentioned in the Schedule annexed with the writ petition shall not be terminated. All the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule-A appended to this order have come up before us. 5. Mr. Mridul, counsel for the petitioner-Sangh has challenged the validity of Rule 17 of the Rules on a number of grounds. He has submitted that the fixing of cut off date for regularisation as 16.5.88 is arbitrary. He has also submitted that the Rule 17 which provides that; the Committee shall scrutinise the applications received by them and require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these Rules as seem to them desirable to appear before them for interview. This rule is ultra vires as there is no guidelines for selection which is based only on interview. He has further submitted that the D.E.C-(District Establishment Committee) who made the selection was not property constituted. Mr. Mridul has also submitted that the marking system is beyond the power of the Government. He has also submitted that the selection be set aside on the ground of discrimination as highly qualified were not selected in comparison to the candidates who were just matriculate. Mr. Mridul has further submitted that the termination of the members of petitioner Sangh be declared illegal in view of clear direction issued by the Government vide Circular dated 10.1.90 whereby the Government has directed that the services of ad-hoc temporary teachers serving in Zila Parishad shall not be terminated. Mr. Choudhary has adopted the arguments of Mr. Mridul. 6. Mr. Udawat, learned Addl. Advocate General appeared on behalf of the State Government. A return was filed by the respondents stating that the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis for, the time being till the selections are made. It is stated that the interviews were held according to rules and there is no illegality in the Rule 17 of the Rules. Mr. Udawat has submitted that due to number of vacancies in Rajasthan advertisements for filling up these vacancies were published and the State Govt. issued direction laying down certain criteria for selection. He has submitted that earlier this Court in Rajvendra and Ors. Mr. Udawat has submitted that due to number of vacancies in Rajasthan advertisements for filling up these vacancies were published and the State Govt. issued direction laying down certain criteria for selection. He has submitted that earlier this Court in Rajvendra and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1990 (2) WLN-446 while allowing the writ petitions directed to implement the select lists prepared under the Rules of 1959 against which an appeal was preferred by the State but the same was dismissed. He has also submitted that thereafter second proviso to Rule 17 was inserted which provides that the District Establishment Committee shall make selections for the various posts in accordance with the general directions given by the Government from time to time without calling for interview if so provided in those instructions, and the same was challenged. A division Bench of this Court in Baljit Kaur v. State WLR 1992(S) Raj. 83 dismissed the writ petition holding that it no--where runs counter to any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules of 1959. The Division Bench has also held that the rule is valid and it is also inter vires Mr. Udawat has also submitted that the Rule 17 was in existence at that time and these grounds were available but it was not challenged and therefore now they cannot be permitted to reagitate the some point in this writ petition and the question is only of academic nature. He has further submitted that even otherwise if this Court comes to the conclusion that the system is not proper then too no relief can be granted without striking down the Rule and the entire exercise will be futile. He has further submitted that the appointments already made have been protected by the order of Division Bench of this Court in Baljit Kaur's case(supra), and not benefit can be given to the members of the petitioner-Sangh, as the persons who have already been selected have not been made a party. He has lastly submitted that it is wrong to contend that the Rule 17 confers unbridled and uncanalised powers on the respondents. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length on 9.9.93 and on 10.9.93 the arguments were heard and concluded and the case was ordered to be listed for 'to be mentioned on 15.9.93. He has lastly submitted that it is wrong to contend that the Rule 17 confers unbridled and uncanalised powers on the respondents. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length on 9.9.93 and on 10.9.93 the arguments were heard and concluded and the case was ordered to be listed for 'to be mentioned on 15.9.93. On 15.9.93, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they do not want to press their challenge to the validity of Rule 17 of the Rules, so also the other grounds and abandon all claims except that the fixing of cut-off date is arbitrary and the members of petitioner-Sangh who have completed two to four years may be given chance of screening and if found suitable be kept in service. 8. Mr. Udawat, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that there is no arbitrariness in fixing the date as the same has been fixed according to academic sessions and in fixing this date the State Govt. kept in view this fact that in 1989 advertisements for selection of teachers were issued but no selection took place in the year 1985 to 1988 and therefore 16.5.88 was fixed as the cut-off date. Thus, it has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 9. Since the challenge to validity of Rule 17 has not been pressed, we are not examining the same. The only contention advanced by the State is that the cut-off date fixed in the notification issued on 11.8.89 provided for screening of the persons who were appointed on or before 16.5.88 and to continue them in service till they are screened for regularisation on the basis of 15 months service. 10. Admittedly, inspite of advertisements for selection of III Grade Teachers having been issued in the year 1989, no selection was made between 16.5.88 to 11.8.89, if the selection had been made at a proper time, the members of petitioner-Sangh if found suitable would have been selected and regularised. Thus, when no selection was made between 16.5.88 to 11.8.89, the fixing of 16.5.88 as cut-off date appears to be unreasonable and there cannot be any good, ground to deprive the other persons who were appointed as temporary teachers during this period from screening particularly when the circular gives a right to the persons for regularisation who have completed only 15 months of service. It is well settled rule of construction that every Statute or Statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made effective retrospectively. In view of this, the Circular dated 11.8.89 cannot be given retrospective effect and it has to be held prospective. Thus, the Circular could be made effective from 11.8.89 onwards and not from 16.5.88. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, to deprive the petitioners who were appointed between 16.5.88 to 11.8.89 of the facility of screening only for the reason that they were appointed after 16.5.88 but before 11.8.89 is not justified. Mr. Udawat has not been able to satisfy this Court as to the rationale of fixing of this date. The only ground taken by him is that advertisements have been issued for selection in the year 1989 but has conceded that no selection took place in the year 1989. The members of the various petitioner Sangh who were not given chance of screening earlier have now completed about four years of service in view of the stay order of this Court and some of them have become overage. As such it would be proper to take a compassionate view and to give them at least one chance of screening. We therefore, direct the respondents to consider only such persons who have not been screened earlier or who have not been regularly appointed so far if they are still continuing in service provided they were appointed between 16.5.88 to 11.8.89 and possess requisite qualifications for appointment as Regular IIIrd Grade Teacher. This process should be completed within three months from the date of this order. However, the Committee will be free to pass appropriate orders including the order of dismissal if the members of the petitioner Sanghs are not found suitable for regularisation or do not possess requisite qualification according to rules. 11. In the result, this writ petition alongwith the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule-A appended to this order stands disposed of with the above observations. 1. D.B.C.WP. No. 5323/90 Association of IIIrd Grade Teachers vs. State 2. D.B.C.WP. No. 37/90 Anupgarh Panchayat Samiti IIIrd Grade Adhyapak Sangh vs. State 3. D.B.C.WP. No. 39/90 Raisinghnagar Panchayat Samiti IIIrd Grade Adhyapak Sangh vs. State. 4. D.B.C.WP. No. 38/90 Bhadra Panehayat Samiti IIIrd Grade Adhyapak Sangh vs. State. 5. D.B.C.WP. No. 690/90 Teachers Association Panchayat Samiti Anupgarh vs. State. 6. No. 5323/90 Association of IIIrd Grade Teachers vs. State 2. D.B.C.WP. No. 37/90 Anupgarh Panchayat Samiti IIIrd Grade Adhyapak Sangh vs. State 3. D.B.C.WP. No. 39/90 Raisinghnagar Panchayat Samiti IIIrd Grade Adhyapak Sangh vs. State. 4. D.B.C.WP. No. 38/90 Bhadra Panehayat Samiti IIIrd Grade Adhyapak Sangh vs. State. 5. D.B.C.WP. No. 690/90 Teachers Association Panchayat Samiti Anupgarh vs. State. 6. D.B.C.W.P. No. 756/90 Teachers Association Panchayat Samiti Badi Sadari vs. State. 7. D.B.C.W.P. No. 3303/90 Panchayat Samiti Sadari vs. State. 8. D.B.C.WP. No. 352/90 Nagaur Panchayat Samiti IIIrd Grade Teacher Adhyppak Sangh vs. State. 9. D.B.C.WP. No. 128/90 Om Prakash vs. State 10. D.B.C.W.P. No. 193/90 Ill rd Grade A dhyapak Sangh vs. State. 11. D.B.C.WP. No. 194/90 Mohar Singh vs. State. 12. D.BfW.Pet. No. 946/90 Mohanlal vs. state. SCHEDULE - A *******