JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - The petitioner, who is a resident of Dholpur and is serving as a Teacher Gr. III in the Government Primary School, Dholpur, had moved this court by way of the instant writ petition in the year 1994 interalia on the grounds that he was initially appointed on the said post vide order dated 17.12.1995 and he joined the duties w.e.f. 23rd Dec. 1975 at Government Upper Primary School, Dheemai. He passed his Graduation in the year 1972 from the Rajasthan University and subsequently he acquired his Post Graduate Degree in Geography subject in the year 1974 from Agra University and M.A. in History in the year 1977 from Rajasthan University. Thereafter, the petitioner also passed B.Ed. Examination in the year 1990 from the Rajasthan University. In accordance with the rules of the Directorate of Education which are applicable to the petitioner's case in order to be considered eligible for being promoted from the post of Teacher Gr. III to that of Teacher Gr. III, in which two-fold criteria was adopted : (i) The seniority of the candidate in the cadre in which he was appointed, and (ii) That the said candidates acquire B.Ed. Degree as the basic minimum qualification of eligibility. Keeping in view the aforesaid qualifications and since the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria, he was given ad hoc appointment as a Teacher Gr. 11 by the respondents vide the promotion order dated 21.2.1992 of the Joint Director, Education, Jaipur Zone. However, the said ad hoc promotion was subject to the availability of the regularly selected candidates whose names were to be recommended on the basis of the regular selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600/-. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was given his posting as teacher Gr. II w.e.f. 30th March 1992 at Government Primary School, Kanchanpur, District Dholpur where he joined his duties w.e.f. 2nd April 1992. 2. The grievance of the petitioner against the respondents is that though he was given ad hoc appointment as aforesaid, his name was not included in the eligibility list published for the years, 1992-93 and 1993-94 and the perusal of the said eligibility list of the respective candidates contained the name of 300 candidates but the petitioner's name was not included in the said list. He has further contended that in the DPC meeting which was convened on 29 April, 1993 prior to the presentation of this writ petition, 14 persons who were regularly selected on the recommendation of the DPC were promoted as Teacher Grade II against the vacancies for the year 1991-92, out of which 8 candidates were given regular promotion against the vacancies of the year 1992-93. Out of 14 candidates as referred to above, the petitioner has not disputed to this fact that they were all senior to the petitioner as per the seniority and eligibility list published by the department but 8 candidates who were promoted against the vacancies for the year 1992-93 or such who were not eligible to be promoted because they had not acquired the qualification of B.Ed. at the relevant point of time. On being issued show-cause notice, the respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition wherein they have controverted the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner on the grounds inter alia that as per the recommendation of the DPC which was last convened by the Department on 15.9.1993 for determining the eligibility of the candidates for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93. The promotions which were given to the Teachers on the recommendations of the DPC, all such persons were senior to the petitioner and there was no such person junior to the petitioner who was appointed. This fact is also borne from the minutes of the DPC for the aforesaid period which I had summoned in order to satisfy myself and the learned counsel for the respondent has accordingly placed the aforesaid minutes for the year 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96 for the perusal of this court. I have perused the said minutes and I am satisfied that the respondents have not committed any candidates below the petitioner. I have perused the said minutes and I am satisfied that the respondents have not committed any candidates below the petitioner. From the perusal of the minutes, it is further revealed that the petitioner is very much within the zone of consideration but keeping in view the fact that the DPC has not been convened so far after the last DPC meeting which was convened on 15.9.93 and as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents to the best of his information, I deemed it appropriate to direct the respondents that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is within the zone of consideration and also meets the eligibility requirement for being promoted to the post of Teacher Gr. II, the respondents are accordingly directed to consider the case of the petitioner by placing his record in the next ensuing meeting of the DPC which should be convened at the earliest possible and not later than six months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 3. The writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of with the above observations. 4. Before parting with the case, I would like to observe that the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan, should frame a definite policy with a view to overcome the difficulties which do arise as has happened in the present case. I am of the view that no ad hoc appointment should be made at the first instance and even if the exigencies of the work do permit such appointment, the period of ad hoc appointment should be specifically indicated in the order of appointment itself, as this would not only avoid the uncalled for litigation but would also convey definite information to the candidate concerned that his appointment being ad hoc shall not continue beyond the periods specified in the appointment order as an ad hoc appointee, since it is an appointment by way of stop gap arrangement till regularly selected candidates are made available with the department for such appointments. I am further of the view that the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Rules, 1971, should be suitable amended to incorporate the aforesaid provision as against ad hoc appointees. I am further of the view that the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Rules, 1971, should be suitable amended to incorporate the aforesaid provision as against ad hoc appointees. I would further like to observe that in all such cases including the candidates who are regularly appointed and who are due for next promotion, DPC should be convened at least once in a year to consider the case of all such ad hoc appointees including the regularly appointed candidates who are due for being considered, as this would not only develop healthy practice in the department but would also dispel all bonafide doubts which the concerned candidates may entertain against the department as their future promotional avenues would otherwise be at stake. The rules should be suitable amended by incorporating the aforesaid suggestions. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, Education, Rajasthan, for making necessary amendment in the rules at the earliest. I am making these observations particularly with a view that the bonafide candidates who are due for promotion and who are within the zone of consideration should not suffer in the manner as it has happened in the instant case. 5. The Deputy Registrar (Judi.) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for compliance.Ordered accordingly. *******