Honble JAIN, J. — By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the third proviso to Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat. Samities and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959 as ultravires to the Constitution of India and prays that the Notification dated. 22.2,1991 (Anx.P/2) and Notification dated 26.2.1991(Anx.P/3) being contrary to the provisions of Section 88(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act,1959 may be declared ultravires. It has also been prayed that the Circular dated 11.8.1989(Anx.P/6)may be declared illegal and the petitioners termination may be treated null and void and he may be treated in service with all consequential benefits and whatsoever selection made in pursuance of Anx.P/4 (Advertisement no.5/91) by the alleged D.E.C. may be treated as null and void. (2). The writ petition is pending admission since 28.1.1993. (3). As ordered, the case is listed today for final disposal in view of the decision rendered in Special Appeal No. 209/94. As agreed by the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. (4). Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959(hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1959) the minimum qualification is Secondary with B.S.T.C. whereas the petitioner who possessed B.A. & B.ED. was called for interview on 8.12.1988 and was appointed as Primary School Teacher for six months on temporary basis along with others. It is also alleged that a Circular dated 11.8.1989 was issued by the State Government whereby it was decided that all those employees who were in employment after 31.12.1985 and were continuing on 16.5.88 may be regularised subject to possessing requisite qualification training, age limit etc. after due screening. It is further alleged that in pursuance of advertisement No. 5/91(Ex.P/4 dt.7.10.92) issued for the post of Primary school teachers, he applied. Thereafter, another advertisement (Ex.P 5) was also issued for female teachers. Merit list of Advertisement No.5/91 was issued. The petitioners services along with others were terminated vide impugned order dt. 7.1.1993 w.e.f. 12.1.1993. Dissatisfied with the termination, the petitioner has approached this court by way of this writ petition challenging the impugned Notifications Anx. P/2 & P/3. (5). Thereafter, another advertisement (Ex.P 5) was also issued for female teachers. Merit list of Advertisement No.5/91 was issued. The petitioners services along with others were terminated vide impugned order dt. 7.1.1993 w.e.f. 12.1.1993. Dissatisfied with the termination, the petitioner has approached this court by way of this writ petition challenging the impugned Notifications Anx. P/2 & P/3. (5). The main contention of Mr.Choudhary is that the third proviso to Rule 17 of the Rules, 1959 is arbitrary, as in this Rule it is mentioned that persons who were provided appointment on or before 31.12.1985 are entitled for regularisation whereas the persons like petitioners have not been given such benefit despite the fact that they have served for a longer period than the persons who are granted benefit of regularisation by virtue of third proviso. He has contended that the Notifications Anx. P/2 & P/3 may also, be declared ultravires as the impugned Notification Ex.P/3 is contrary to the provisions of Section 88 (2) (a) of the Act,1959. He has relied on Arvind kumar Vs. State (1), Ram Dass Verma Vs. State (2), Mahadev Prasad Vs. RSRTC (3), All Manipur Regular Post Vacancies Substitue Teachers Association Vs. State (4), Good Year India Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (5) and Gulam Abbas Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (6). (6). Mr. Bishnoi, counsel for the non-petitioners, submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as the vires of Rule 17 of the Rules,1959 has been upheld by Division Bench of this court in Baljit Kaur Vs. State (7), so this point cannot be reagitated. He has urged that the other prayers are fully covered by a Division Bench decision of this court rendered in Arnod Panchayat Samiti Vs. State(D.B.S.W.Pet.No.979/90)decided on 6th October,1993 along with similar matters as per Schedule attached with the decision whereby the benefit of cut off date was extended only to those persons who were already continuing service on the date of judgment. (7). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited at Bar. (8). So far as the challenge to the validity of Rule 17 of the Rules,1959 is concerned, suffice it to say that a Division Bench of this court in Baljit Kaur. Vs. (7). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited at Bar. (8). So far as the challenge to the validity of Rule 17 of the Rules,1959 is concerned, suffice it to say that a Division Bench of this court in Baljit Kaur. Vs. State (9), while dismissing the writ petitions held that it no-where runs contrary to any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules of 1959. The learned Judges held that the rule is valid and intra vires. Thus, the argument of Mr.Choudhary challenging the validity of Rule 17 is baseless and the grounds which he wants to raise were available to him at that point of time. Now, we cannot reappreciate the points particularly when no remedy was availed against that judgment. Therefore, the question which the counsel for the petitioner wants to raise is no more res-integra and no relief can be granted to the petitioner on this count. (9). So far as the contention or Mr.Choudhary that Anx.P/3 dt.26.2.1991 is contrary to the provisions of Section 88(2)(a) of the Act,1959 and that Anx.P/2 dt.22.2.1991 whereby amendment has been made in Rule 17 of the Rules,1959 both are illegal and ultravires to the Constitution, is concerned, the same has no substance and no relief can be granted under these prayers. (10). Section 79 of the Act, 1959 confers power on the State Government to frame Rules. The only condition which is to be fulfilled is that such rule shall be laid before the House of the State Legislature within a prescribed period. Therefore, the Circular Anx.P/2 dt.22.2.1991 by which after first proviso, second proviso was added to Rule 17, cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Anx.P/3 whereby detailed criteria for selection and awarding marks has been issued under the said newly added proviso to Rule 17 as so to maintain a uniform practice throughout the State in the matter. of recruitment of such employees. Thus, the general directions given by the Government from time to time and vide Anx, P/3 providing award of marks without calling for interview as per the instruction cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal, since it is within the competence of the State to frame rules and issue guidelines. Therefore, these two impugned Notifications are intra-vires and cannot be challenged. Therefore, these two impugned Notifications are intra-vires and cannot be challenged. (11). That apart the validity of the said two Notifications/ Circulars dt. 22.2.1991 and 26.2.1991 (Anx.P/2 & P/3) has already been upheld in Baljit Kaur Vs. State (supra). (12). However, Mr.Choudhary does not dispute the legal position but submits that the observations made in Arnod Panchayat Samitis case (supra) to the effect whereby relief was given to those incumbents who were continuing in service on the date of judgment was uncalled for. (13). A bare perusal of the Notification dated 11.8.89 clearly shows that the cases of those teachers who were appointed after 31.12.1985 and continued till 16.5.88 without interruption were to be considered for regularisation after screening provided they fulfill certain conditions. The petitioner has not placed anything on record to show that he was appointed after 31.12.1985 and continued as such till 16.5.88. He has also not averred that he has continued till 16.5.88 rather he was appointed on 8.12.88,so the petitioner cannot take advantage of the said notification. (14). A Division Bench of this court in Arnod Panchayat Samitis case (supra) while examining the notification dt. 11.8.1989 considered the fixing of cut-off date. This court has observed that fixing of cut-off date appears to be unreasonable and the same was extended from 16.5.88 to 11.8.89,the date of issue of the notification for the reason that every Statute or Statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made effective retrospectively and further that inspite of advertisement no selection of third grade teacher took place between the period 16.5.88 to 11.8.89 and pending litigation the incumbents continued in service. Therefore, taking a compassionate view this court directed to consider the case of such persons who have not been regularly appointed so far if they were appointed between 16.5.88 to 11.8.89 and continued till the date of decision and possess requisite qualification for appointment as third grade teacher. This court directed to complete the process within three months from the date of the order i.e. 6.10.1993 and further directed that the committee will be free to pass appropriate orders including the order of dismissal if the members of the petitioner-Sangh are not found suitable for regularisation or do not possess requisite qualification according to rules. We have carefully perused the said decision. We have carefully perused the said decision. Though it is the prerogative of the Government to relax the procedure laid down according to rules but in the aforesaid decision since the Notification dated 11.8.1989 by which the Government itself granted benefit of regularisation to the teachers after screening who were appointed on or after 31.12.1985 and continued till 16.5.88, was made retrospective due to which certain persons were deprived of benefit of screening despite regularly working and further no selection was made during that period, this court while taking a compassionate view granted benefit of the Notification dated 11.8.1989 to the persons who were appointed between 16.5.88 to 11.8.89 also and continued till the date of the decision. The view taken by the learned Judges in the aforesaid circumstances is reasonable and we do not find any reason to take a different view. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner approached this court against his termination on 28.1.1993 prior to the decision dated 6.10. 1993 of Arnod Panchayat Samitis case and he could have raised all the points at the point of time and now he cannot be allowed to raise them subsequently in this case. That apart this Division Bench need not find to review or modify the order passed by that Division Bench. Moreso, the order dated 6.10.1993 was neither reviewed nor appealed before the Apex Court. The Government has already stepped in by issuing a Notification dated 22.3.1994 on the basis of said decision. It is undisputed that on the basis of decision rendered in Arnod Panchayat Samitis case a large number of cas6s have already been disposed of, some of them are Babudevi Vs. State(D.B.C.W.Petition No.382/93) decided on 25.7.1994, Ram Niwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(D.B.C.W.Petition No.596/93) decided on 02.9.1994,Ram Pratap Vs. State(D.B.C.W.Petition No.221/93) decided on 25.7.1994, Phool Chand & ors. Vs. State(D.B.C.W.Petitioh No.266/93) decided on 09.9.1994., and Laxmi Kant Vs. State (D.B.Special Appeal No.669/83)decided on 28.10.93. (15). State(D.B.C.W.Petition No.382/93) decided on 25.7.1994, Ram Niwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(D.B.C.W.Petition No.596/93) decided on 02.9.1994,Ram Pratap Vs. State(D.B.C.W.Petition No.221/93) decided on 25.7.1994, Phool Chand & ors. Vs. State(D.B.C.W.Petitioh No.266/93) decided on 09.9.1994., and Laxmi Kant Vs. State (D.B.Special Appeal No.669/83)decided on 28.10.93. (15). Therefore, in our opinion, it would not be proper to re-examine the matter to grant benefit to the incumbents who were in service between 16.5.88 to 11.8.1989 without continuing till 6.10.1993 that too when the court has already taken a compassionate view and the contention of Mr.Choudhary that the observations made in Arnod Panchayat Samitis decision to the effect that cases of those incumbents may be considered who were appointed between 16.5.88 to 11.8.89 and continued till the date of decision are uncalled for, has no substance. (16). According to the petitioner himself his case is identical to Ram Pratap Vs.State(D.B.C.W.Petition No.221/92) as has been mentioned by him in Para(l) of the Writ Petition, which has already been dismissed by this Court on 25.7.1994, as stated above. (17). A perusal of the order-sheet dated 11.5.94 of the case in hand reveals that identical matter Jagdish Yadav Vs. State(D.B.C.Special Appeal No.209/94) was ordered to be listed with this case, which has also been dismissed as not pressed in view of Arnod Panchayat Samitis decision on 8.8.1994. (18). The practice of filing writ petition on one ground or the other challenging the same point including the point of vires particularly when the controversy/vires stood resolved by the court, is increasing, which reflects the conduct of the incumbent approaching the court suppressing material facts by the parties while keeping the court in dark. We strongly depricate such practice and make a note of caution to the members of the Bar also to come with clean hands to assist the court for redressal of the grievances of parties. (19). In Arvind Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan(supra),the learned single Judge has discussed the point regarding awarding of marks which is not the subject matter of the present writ petition and we are not called upon to decide the same, therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the same. So also the case of All Manipur Regular Post Vacancies Post Substitute Teachers Association Vs. State (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of present case. So also the case of All Manipur Regular Post Vacancies Post Substitute Teachers Association Vs. State (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of present case. The other cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner are also not helpful and it is not necessary to deal with them, in detail. (20). It is no doubt true that the averments made in the writ petition may be accepted if not denied specifically in reply but as stated above in the instant case, the petitioner being a temporary appointee for a period of six months on 8.12.1988 has not placed any material on record to show that he continued in service till his terminaion except the termination order dated 7.1.1993. Therefore, in the absence of any material on record, the case of the petitioner that he continued for a longer period than the persons who were given benefit by the Government vide Anx. P/6 dated 11.8.1989, cannot be accepted in toto and the contention of Mr.Choudhary has not substance. The cases viz. Ram Dass Verma Vs. State(supra) and Mahadev Prasad Vs. RSRTC (supra) cited by the counsel for the petitioner are not helpful to him and no relief can be granted to the petitioner on this count. (21). The petitioner also cannot derive any benefit out of the Notification dated 2.9.1989 which was shown to us in the court but has not been filed with the writ petition, since it only helps to those who were appointed after 31.12.1985 and remained in continuous service upto 16.5.88 but removed thereafter. As already stated the petitioners case is hot of such a nature. Thus the said Notification dated 2.9.1989 is also of no help to the petitioner. (22). Likewise the petitioner being an appointee of 8.12.1988 cannot take advantage of Anx.P/7 dated 17.1.1991 whereby the State Government on complaints has directed that in view of the Notification dated 11.8.1989 trained teachers should not be removed from, service who were appointed prior to 16.5.88 and continued thereafter, till they are screened. (23). It is not out of place to mention here that as per the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules,1959 one can only be appointed for six months and if they thought to continue for a period beyond six months prior concurrence of the Commission/District Establishment Committee is necessary and that too not beyond a period of one year. (23). It is not out of place to mention here that as per the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules,1959 one can only be appointed for six months and if they thought to continue for a period beyond six months prior concurrence of the Commission/District Establishment Committee is necessary and that too not beyond a period of one year. In the case in hand, the petitioner has not come out with a case that his term was extended beyond the period, Rule 23(6) of the Rules, 1959 provides that as soon as duly selected candidates are made available, the persons who were working on temporary basis have to make room for them. This Court as well as the Supreme Court have also expressed the same view. Thus, the petitioner has no right to continue in service as the petitioner has already been terminated from service on 8.1.1993 on availability of selected candidates and thereafter no more in service. Vide order dated 1.2.1993, the Court ordered that if after appointment of duly selected candidates vacancies exist, the petitioners services may not be terminated subject to the principle of first come last go. It appears that due to availability of duly selected candidates the said order could not be complied with. So, the question of regularisation of the petitioner does not arise particularly when as stated by the petitioner he applied in pursuance of Advertisement No.5/91 but he was not selected. Reference may be made to Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P.Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastaya (8) and Rajkiya Mahavidyalaya Aasthai Vyakhyata Sangharsh Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.BiC.Special Appeal No. 143/93) decided on 14.10.1993 and Dr. Arundhati Ajit Vs. State of Maharashtra (9) decided on 31.8.94. (24). As discussed above no relief of regularisation can be granted to the petitioner whose temporary services have been terminated on 7.1.1993 on availability of selected candidates. That apart the petitioner cannot take advantage of the notifications issued by the Government. In view of this , in our considered opinion, it is not a fit case which warrants exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226. As such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The interim order dated 1.2.1993 is discharged. (25). No other point has been pressed before us. (26). Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with estimated cost of Rs. 1000/-.