JUDGMENT 1. (Oral)- Since both the aforesaid writ petitions involve identical questions of law, the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 567/1993, who is serving in the capacity of Deputy Director, (Field operations). Information, Education Communication Bureau (For short "IECB") which is a wing of the Directorate of Medical and Health Services of the State Government at Jaipur, has moved this court by way of the instant writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that after obtaining requisite educational qualifications and after having undergone training in the field of Extension Education from the Central Health Education Bureau, New Delhi and after having participated in the training programme sponsored by the National Health Institute and Family Welfare media Production from the institute of mass communication and designs Ahmedabad and from Bombay respectively, the petitioner prepared a project concerning information, education communication which had its approval from high power committee of the State Government, Central Government and the experts in the field in the year 1989-90. The petitioner has to his credit about 31 years of experience in the field of health education and in the I.E.C.B. He was initially appointed as a health educator in the department of health education of the State Government on 1.8.1961 and after his post graduation in sociology in 1960 from Rajasthan University, has been rendering his services in the said department. In the year 1966 he was promoted as health education extension officer and in 1968 on the post of education publicity officer for short `EPO' pursuant to his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer in the year 1973 and thereafter promoted as Asstt. Director I.E.C.B. on recommendation of the Selection Committee in the year 1984. 3. It has been brought to the notice of this court that ever since his absorption to I.E.C.B. Directorate of Medical and health, the petitioner has been performing duties on various posts in absence of service Rules on an ex-cadre post as Assistant Director and now as Deputy Director field operations on ad-hoc basis. Since the petitioner was senior most in the cadre of Asstt. Directors of the Bureau, when the post of Deputy Director fell vacant in the year 1992, the petitioner was assigned the charge of Deputy Director (Field operations) being the next higher post in the Bureau. 4. Since the petitioner was senior most in the cadre of Asstt. Directors of the Bureau, when the post of Deputy Director fell vacant in the year 1992, the petitioner was assigned the charge of Deputy Director (Field operations) being the next higher post in the Bureau. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner was given the charge of the post of Deputy Director (Field Operations) on temporary basis since the process of formulating and finalising the rules was under consideration of the State Government and since the Rules governing the service conditions of the employees of the Bureau had not been framed, the petitioner has sought necessary directions from this court as mentioned hereinafter. The pay-scale of Asstt. Director is As. 4200-4000 and that of Deputy Director is As. 3000-4500 and both the said posts have been proposed to be placed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4500 and Rs. 3700-5000 respectively in accordance with the amended Rules of 1997. 5. During the course of hearing it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ever since his appointment in the department of Medical & Health & subsequently on deputation to I.E.C.B. the petitioner has been discharging his duties in absence of any formal rules and this is primarily the reason for which his services have yet not been regularised as Deputy Director in the said department notwithstanding his due selection on the substantive post of Asstt. Director pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Learned counsel has further expressed the apprehension that since the petitioner is due to retire w.e.f. 31.7.1997, if the rules which are under process are not promulgated, he will be deprived of consequential benefits, i.e., pension, gratuity etc. as admissible to similarly placed officials of the Directorate. 6. On 27.1.1993 this court has issued show cause notice to the respondents as to why the writ petition be not admitted and disposed of at admission stage itself. the respondents put in appearance pursuant to the show cause notice and filed their ronk, -... - - grounds inter alia that necessary proposal to include the post of two Deputy Directors (Field Operations) and for material production and one post of Joint Director in State Service Rules have already been sent to the State Government by the I.E.C.B., Medical and Health Services, Jaipur and the approval is awaited. - - grounds inter alia that necessary proposal to include the post of two Deputy Directors (Field Operations) and for material production and one post of Joint Director in State Service Rules have already been sent to the State Government by the I.E.C.B., Medical and Health Services, Jaipur and the approval is awaited. The amended draft Rules are in the process of being framed and promulgated and regular correspondence between the different departments of the State Government is going on and it is under active consideration of the State Government. 7. On merits the respondents have contended that the petitioner has been discharging his duties earlier on the post of Asstt. Director, I.E.C.B. w.e.f. 1994 on ad-hoc basis and thereafter he was given temporary charge of Deputy Director, but since the posts are ex-cadre, till the framing of the relevant rules and/or inclusion of the posts in the rules, the petitioner cannot claim benefit of regularisation or promotion to the said post. They have further contended that till the rules are framed and the mode/criteria as well as the procedure is laid down, no regular promotions can be given to the petitioner.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also directed the Health Secretary to be present in the court and on 13.3.1997. The Health Secretary of the State has filed his affidavit to the effect that the draft amendment of the rules has already been approved by the department of Personnel as well as by the Finance Department including the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The Health Secretary further submitted that certain modifications in the draft rules were carried out and the approval of the D.O.P. has since already been obtained and the Law & finance Departments have also given their approval to the draft rules. Thereafter draft rules were sent to the council of Ministers and their approval was awaited. It was accordingly directed that the respondents shall inform this court positively regarding further progress in the matter and since the approval has already been obtained, the formal notification may be issued by the State Government duly notifying the publication of the Rules in the State Gazette and that copy of the said notification shall also be placed on the record of this court. thereafter on 27.5.1997 this court was informed by the learned Addl. thereafter on 27.5.1997 this court was informed by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the rules have already been framed and after obtaining the approval of the council of the Ministers they have been sent to His Excellency the governor which was awaited. It was accordingly directed that as soon as the rules are formulated and the notification is issued, the D.P.C. shall be convened at the earliest possible time so that the cases of all the affected employees including the petitioner shall be screened by the Selection Committee with a view to provide them necessary relief as admissible to them under the Rules. 8. I am informed by Director, Medical & Health (Research) Department who is present in Court that a Notification in pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 13.5.1997 as well as 27.5.1997, has already been published and notified in the State Gazette dated 4th June, 1997 and was taken on record vide Annexure C/1 in Civil Writ No. 567/1993. A copy of the Amended Rules published, in the State Gazette has been perused by this court. I am further informed by the director of the Medical &Health (Research) Department that the D.P.C. was convened which had done the screening of the eligible candidates including the petitioner. From the perusal of the minutes of the D.P.C. it is revealed that the screening committee had considered the cases of the all the affected employees including the petitioner alongwith four other candidates found suitable to continue on the post of Deputy Directors (I.E.C.B.) w.e.f. 1.4.1992. 9. The petitioner has now since been performing the duties on the post of Deputy Director in view of the recommendations of the D.P.C. and the D.P.C. has found nothing adverse against the petitioner. 10. With regard to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 642/94, Gopal Krishna Sharma & Ors. 9. The petitioner has now since been performing the duties on the post of Deputy Director in view of the recommendations of the D.P.C. and the D.P.C. has found nothing adverse against the petitioner. 10. With regard to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 642/94, Gopal Krishna Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and another the question of facts and law which have been raised by the petitioners have the same bearing as in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 567/93 except to the extent that in Writ Petition No. 567/93 the petitioner has sought the direction from this court to the effect that the order dated 11.1.1993 passed by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner has been posted on deputation on the post of Deputy Director (Field Oprations) IECB be declared illegal and arbitrary and be set aside and that the petitioner be allowed to continue on the said post on which he is working as senior most Asstt. Director and as such preferential right of promotion on the said post and further that rules of promotion on the post of Deputy Director IECB may be finalised by giving 100% promotional avanues to Asstt. Directors with a further direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Deputy Director from the date of his posting by determining year wise vacancies with all consequential benefits; whereas in C.W.P. No. 642/94 the petitioners have contended that on account of denial of promotions by the respondents notwithstanding their postings as asstt. Directors/Communication Officers on ad-hoc basis they are facing stagnation in service since 22.6.1991. 11. As regards the first direction which the petitioner has sought from this court against the respondent No.3 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 567/1993. Directors/Communication Officers on ad-hoc basis they are facing stagnation in service since 22.6.1991. 11. As regards the first direction which the petitioner has sought from this court against the respondent No.3 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 567/1993. I am of the considered view that it is neither possible nor desirable for this court to go into the said question because it is not for this court to substitute its findings over the expert bodies and this question should be left open to the expert bodies or the selection committee to determine the candidature of the respective candidate on valuation of their comparative merits and unless and until the process of selection on the said post qua other similarly placed candidates has been challenged by the petitioner, it is not open for this court to go into the said question and hence it is not tenable for the petitioner to have urged this contention before this court to either quash or set aside the appointment of respondent No.3. This question is A however, left, open to the department promotion committee which should be convened by the respondents wjthin the stipulated period as directed above. It will be for the said D.P.C. to evaluate the comparative merit of the petitioner qua other similarly placed candidates and there after determine as to whether the services of the petitioner should be regularised on the said post or not. However, since the petitioner will S be demitting office consequent to his retirement on attaining the age of super anuation w.e.f. 31.7.1997, the respondents are directed to convene the D.P.C. at the earliest within the stipulated period as aforesaid and record its findings, thereafter determine the applicability of the same to the petitioner as regards his entitlement to the consequential reliefs as admissible to him under the rules. The D.PC. shall take into consideration the number of posts available in the department of the Deputy Directors (Field Operations) as well as the substantive posts of Asstt. Directors and thereafter determine the eligibility of the petitioner qua other similarly placed candidates in order of their respective merit and thereafter draw up a seniority list and issue the same in accordance with the rules. 12. Directors and thereafter determine the eligibility of the petitioner qua other similarly placed candidates in order of their respective merit and thereafter draw up a seniority list and issue the same in accordance with the rules. 12. As regards the second direction sought by the petitioner, I am of the view that it is not for the petitioner to assert that the promotional avenues for the post of Deputy Director and Joint Director of the Bureau it should be finalised by giving 100% promotional avenues from the cadre of Asstt. Directors alone since this is a policy decision to be taken by the Bureau in accordance with the Rules and it is not for the petitioner to restrict the scope and applicability of the said rules in the manner as suggested by him. 13. The aforesaid question cannot be gone into at this stage because as and when the petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Director and thereafter as Deputy Director on deputation the rules had not come into force and they have now come into force and promulgated with effect from 4.6.1997 and consequently it is not permissible to the petitioner to enlarge the ambit and scope of writ petition for discussion beyond the scope of rules as referred to above. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the rules and his concern was only limited to the framing and promulgation of the rules by the Bureau so that he may not be deprived of his consequential benefits as admissible to him on the eve of his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation and this court has already directed the respondents to convene the D.P.C. within the stipulated period with a direction to release the consequential benefits i.e., pension, gratuity, revision of salaries etc. as admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the rules.In Gopal Krishan Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 642/1994 the petitioners have filed joint writ petition and have raised common grievance against the respondent-State. The petitioners are serving in the capacity of District Education and Publicity Officers (For short 'EPOs') and are ad-hoc promo tees on the post of Asstt. Directors and Communication Officers pursuant to their selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer on different dates as specified in Schedule A to the writ petition. The petitioners are serving in the capacity of District Education and Publicity Officers (For short 'EPOs') and are ad-hoc promo tees on the post of Asstt. Directors and Communication Officers pursuant to their selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer on different dates as specified in Schedule A to the writ petition. Their mode of appointment was 75% by direct recruitment and, 25% by promotion as in the year 1968 when they were appointed pursuant to their selection by Service Selection Committee which had the approval of Raj. Public Service Commission in 1973. Later on the posts of EPOs became 100% promotional posts. The petitioners were all selected by the department by way of a direct recruitment as EPOs and have raised the grievance that they have not been given further promotions on the higher posts in view of the Rules having not been framed by the department with regard to the qualifications and the mode of recruitment for the posts of Asstt. Directors, Dy. Directors, Joint Directors and Directors of IECB Directorate of Medical and Health as aforesaid. The i petitioners had earlier approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Directorate in filling up the posts of Asstt. Directors on urgent/temporary basis consequent upon the advertisement for the said posts. Learned Tribunal declined to give relief to the petitioners on the ground that it was open to them to approach this court due to lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear those appeals. The petitioners have further stated that they do not have any permanent lien on the aforesaid posts and are still working on urgent/temporary/ad-hoc basis and have not yet been confirmed against the respective posts. They have further contended that since the posts have not been included in the i Schedule appended to the Rules of 1963, they are being filled up on urgent/temporary/ad-hoc basis or by bringing persons from other departments on deputation. 14. Since the petitioners were apprehending their reversion by the department, the petitioners approached this court by way of instant writ petition on 4.2.1994 and the writ petition was admitted for hearing on 9.4.1994 which is now being disposed of finally by this common order. 15. 14. Since the petitioners were apprehending their reversion by the department, the petitioners approached this court by way of instant writ petition on 4.2.1994 and the writ petition was admitted for hearing on 9.4.1994 which is now being disposed of finally by this common order. 15. The petitioners have assailed the impugned action of the respondents in not in cadering the posts under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 (for short the Rules of 1963") and further for not having framed the rules for promotion for various posts lying vacant under the Directorate of IECB as wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, in as much as the petitioners chances of promotions to the higher posts have been nullified by giving them ad- hoc promotions which itself are contrary to the Rules on the grounds inter-alia; a) The petitioners have not received a single promotion in their entire service carrier on regular post, while they have been made to work under the officers brought from Medical Colleges and other places on deputation, b) By bringing officers on deputation on higher posts from other departments has caused great hardship and mental agony to the petitioners and whose chances for further promotion have been adversely affected as a consequence thereof, c) that there is urgent need for framing of the Rules for promotion in the directorate of IECB, d) That the posts of Asst. Directors are the first senior most posts after the post of EPOs and as per the rules applicable to the department of Medical and Health, the first higher post i.e., Asstt. Director is to be filled in 100% by seniority and the second promotional post of Deputy Director is to be filled in by 50% merit-cum- seniority, while 50% by seniority-cum-merit. Thus the posts of Asstt. Directors and Deputy Direrctor deserve to be filled in by promotion alone and the action of the department in filling up the said posts by inviting candidates by way of direct recruitment from open market is illegal and unjustified. 16. In support of their above contentions the petitioners have placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex court in the matter of Raghunath Prasad v. Secretary (Home) reported in AIR 1988 (Supp.) S.C. 1033 wherein it was held as under : "Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. 16. In support of their above contentions the petitioners have placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex court in the matter of Raghunath Prasad v. Secretary (Home) reported in AIR 1988 (Supp.) S.C. 1033 wherein it was held as under : "Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In absence of promotional prospects and stagnation kills, the desire to serve properly. We would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the Wireless Organisation within 6 months from today by appropriate amendment of rules". 17. Since the petitioners have been facing stagnation as EPOs in the Directorate of Medical and Health since 1968, they have assailed the impugned action of the respondents by seeking relief of regularisation on the posts of Asstt. Directors/Communication Officers on which they have been discharging their duties from the date they were so promoted, i.e., 22.7.1991 or atleast from the date they were given pay scales for the said posts, i.e., 18.1.1992 and have further assailed the impugned action of the respondents that the action of the respondents in making appointments on the aforesaid posts by adopting pick and choose method is arbitrary and contrary to Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, all appointments made on the posts of Deputy Directors and Joint Directors in there department deserve to be declared illegal and bad in law. 18. In the relief clause the petitioners have sought the following directions:- a) that the respondents be directed to include all the above posts of the Directorate of IECB in the Rules of 1963 in the appended Schedule and frame the rules regarding their mode of appointment and prescribe qualifications by giving atleast two opportunities for promotion to the petitioners in the Directorate, b) declare the petitioners as regularly promotee on the post of Asstt. Director/Communication Officer/Training Project Officer of the Bureau from the date they have been so promoted with all consequential benefits by giving them the benefit of past service on the post of Asstt. Directors, c) restrain the respondents from making further appointments on deputation on the above posts, d) direct the respondents to fill up the posts of Asstt. Director/Communication Officer/Training Project Officer of the Bureau from the date they have been so promoted with all consequential benefits by giving them the benefit of past service on the post of Asstt. Directors, c) restrain the respondents from making further appointments on deputation on the above posts, d) direct the respondents to fill up the posts of Asstt. Directors by making regular promotions on 100% promotional post and likewise posts of Deputy Directors respectively. 19. With regard to the above directions as sought by the petitioners I am of the view that since the Rules of 1963 have already been amended by the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1997 which were notified by the State Government vide notification dated 2.6.1997 published in State Gazette, the questions with regard to the mode of appointment and recruitment on the posts of Asstt. Directors/Deputy Directors/Joint Directors/Directors has to be done in accordance with the amended Rules on recommendation of the Screening Committee which shall after adjudging their suitability against the respective posts which they are occupying subject to the ful-fillment of eligibility criteria as regards the requisite qualification and experience prescribed in the amended rules whether by way of direct recruitment of or by way of promotion, as the case may be, on the basis of which such candidates were selected on ad- hoc/officiating/urgent/temporary basis on such posts. Consequently I am of the view that since the earlier rules of 1963 have already been amended by the rules of 1997, the criteria regarding the promotional benefits to be accorded to the candidates who are found eligible in accordance with the rules of 1997 by the screening committee, the respondents are accordingly directed to convene a D.P.C. for extending promotional benefits as well as regularisation in service to the petitioners against their respective posts within r a period of eight weeks from today. As regards the directions sought by the petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 642/1994, that the respondents should be restrained from making future appointments by deputation, I am of the view that the same cannot be given to the petitioners, since this court cannot impose any blanket ban against future appointments and the same should be made by the department strictly in accordance with the rules. 20. 20. In view of the above, it is accordingly directed that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 567/1993 shall be entitled to all the necessary consequential benefits as may be admissible to him under the rules on his attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.7.1997 such as pension, gratuity and the arrears of pay and pay-revision, if any, within a period of three months from today. 21. Respondents are further directed to issue a formal order of promotion in favour of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Director since he had already been found suitable for the said post on the recommendation of D.P.C. to-day itself. 22. With the above directions Writ Petition No. 567/1993 is allowed. Writ Petition No. 642/1994 is partly allowed in the light of the above directions, with no order as to costs. The copy of this order be sent to the Director, IECB, Department of Medical & Health, Directorate, Jaipur for immediate compliance.SBCWP No. 567/1993 Allowed - S.B.C.W.P.No. 642/1994 Partly Allowed. *******