JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance has been directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 6.12.1991 passed in writ petition No. 5505/91 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners Om Prakash and Bhanwar Singh was disposed of in the light of the decision rendered in Ram Prasan Nai's case. 2. The Brief relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that in pursuance of a notification dated 1.1.90 issued by the appellants for filling up the posts of 'Shiksha Sahayogi/Shiksha Sahayak' the respondents submitted their applications. After holding interviews the appellant no. 2 selected the petitioner- respondents. They were appointed vide order dated 24.3.90 (Annex.2) as untrained 'Shiksha Sahayogi/Shiksha Sahayak' on fixed salary of र 500/- per month purely on temporary basis and they joined their duties on (sic). The Government issued an order dated 8.5.90 whereby it was directed that no 'Shiksha Sahayogi' would be appointed now onwards and the persons appointed on said posts would not be allowed to continue after 15.6.90. The services of the petitioner-respondents were terminated on 15.5.90. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners filed writ petition. The writ petition was listed for the first time for admission on 6.12.91. On the same day, without notice to the Panchayat Samiti the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition in terms of the decision rendered in Ram Prasan Nai' v. State, S.B.Civil W.P. No. 4598/90, decided on 13.9.91 . Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal. 3. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the writ petition was listed for the first time on 6.12.91 for admission and on the same day without issuing notice to the Panchayat Samiti who is affected party, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition in terms of the decision rendered in Ram Prasan Nai v. State (S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No.4598/90) decided on 13.9.91 . No.4598/90) decided on 13.9.91 . He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in relying on the said Ram Prasan Nai's case.He has also submitted that this case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Yuva Shiksha Sangh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B.C.W.P. No. 2982190 decided on 9.12.90 , wherein under similar circumstances the petitioner was appointed for fixed term and the scheme under which the petitioner was appointed was dis-continued by the order Annex. R. 1 dated 21.7.90, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge without considering the case on merits erred in holding that the case was squarely covered by Yuva Shiksha Sangh's case (sic Ram Prasan Nai case) instead of Ram Prasan Nai's case (sic Yuva Shiksha Sangh's case) dismissed the review petition as time barred. 4. Mr. Boda, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition while relying on Ram Prasan Nai's case and the case of Yuva Shiksha Sangh (Supra) is not applicable as in that case the order dated 1.6.90 was not produced. In the alternative he has submitted that the respondents may be appointed in another project called Shiksha Karmi Project as untrained teachers are appointed as Shiksha Karmi Sahayogi, in view of advertisement no. 5/92 dated 15.9.92 published in Rajasthan Patrika on 2.10.92 (Annex. 5) in case they cannot be considered in the present Scheme. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the reply. 6. The main controversy which is to be resolved by us is that whether the case of the petitioner-respondents is covered by Ram Prasan Nai's case (Supra) or by Yuva Shiksha Sangh's case. 7. In Ram Prasan Nai v. State (supra), the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Sahayogi on 20.3.90 and he continued as such till 28.6.90. Thereafter by another order the petitioner was asked to report from 1.7.90 but this order was subsequently stayed vide order dated 7.7.90. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred writ petition. The respondent in its return pointed out that the order dated 28.6.90 was erroneously passed in contravention of the order of the Government dated 8.5.90, whereby the Scheme of Shiksha Sahayogi was suspended. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred writ petition. The respondent in its return pointed out that the order dated 28.6.90 was erroneously passed in contravention of the order of the Government dated 8.5.90, whereby the Scheme of Shiksha Sahayogi was suspended. A rejoinder was filed along with a document dated 1.6.90 wherein it was mentioned that during 1990-91 no new school would be opened but those schools which had already been opened under the Shiksha Sahayogi Scheme would be allowed to continue. The learned Single Judge after considering the order dated 1.6.90 directed the respondent to seek necessary budgetary allocation from the Government in the light of above Govt. order and after seeking necessary sanction petitioner should be appointed. 8. In Yuva Shiksha Sahayogi Sangh v. State (supra), the members of the petitioner Sangh were appointed after due selection but thereafter their services were terminated. The respondents filed return to the writ petition stating that the appointment was given for fixed term and further that The scheme of Shiksha Sahayogi has been dis-continued by the Government vide order dated 21.7.90. The learned Single Judge after considering material on record dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the Scheme under which the petitioners were appointed has been dis-continued and further the term of the petitioners was not extended. 9. Undoubtedly, the said two cases and the case in hand pertain to Shiksha Sahayogi relating to one Scheme but two contrary decisions have come into existence because in Ram Prasan Nai's case there were two orders before the learned Single Judge one dated 85.90 whereby it was mentioned that no recruitment under the Scheme shall be made and by another order dated 1.6.90 the State Government ordered that during 1990-91 no new school would be opened but those schools which were already opened under the Shiksha Sahayogi Scheme were allowed to be continued. Therefore, the learned Single Judge in that case gave direction to give appointment. Admittedly at that point of time the order dated 21.7.90 (Annex.2) was not brought to the notice of the Court, otherwise such direction would not have been given. Whereas in Yuva Shiksha Sangh's case decided on 19.12.90 the order dated 21.7.90 was produced by the respondent, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has held that as the Scheme itself had been discontinued no relief could be granted. Whereas in Yuva Shiksha Sangh's case decided on 19.12.90 the order dated 21.7.90 was produced by the respondent, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has held that as the Scheme itself had been discontinued no relief could be granted. Be that as it may, in the instant case it is clear from a perusal of record that the case came to be decided in presence of counsel for the State without issuing notice to the Panchayat Samiti, Luni who is a necessary and affected party in the matter. Thus, there was no occasion for the Panchayat Samiti, Luni to produce and bring to the notice of the Court that the Scheme had already been abolished. Under these circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the appellant has to be accepted and it has to be held that the learned Single Judge has erred in relying on Ram Prasan Nai's case for the reason that when the Scheme under which the petitioner-respondents were employed for a fixed term had been discontinued by the State Government vide Annex. 2 dated 21.7.90. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. However, the argument of Mr. Boda that the respondents' case may be considered for appointment in Shiksha Sahayogi Project in view of advertisement no. 5/92 dated 15.9.92 or any other project wherein untrained teachers are appointed has some substance. In view of this, the appellants are directed to consider the case of the petitioner-respondents in the said project or any other project provided they fulfill requisite qualifications and are eligible according to rules.In view of what we have discussed above, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.12.91 deserves to be set aside. Consequently, this special appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.12.91 passed by the learned Single judge is set aside. No order as to costs. Special appeal allowed. *******