JUDGMENT 1. - Since identical questions of fact and law are involved in instant petitions, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The meaningful question that requires my consideration in all the writ petitions is whether the period of vacations between two academic sessions for which no salary was paid should be ignored for the purpose of calculating the total service experience in order to give appointment on the post of Head Master (Secondary School). 3. Applications were invited by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the RPSC) vide advertisement dated December 18, 1995 for the post of Head Master (Secondary School). Undisputedly all the petitioners submitted applications and they were provisionally selected by the RPSC. Petitioners Mahendra Singh, Gan Raj Meena and Jitendra Kumar Surolia were respectively placed in the merit list at Nos. 170, 293 and 121. Subsequently, candidature of all the petitioners was cancelled by the RPSC on the ground that they did not possess five years experience, which was a condition precedent for appointment on the post of Head Master (Secondary School). Orders cancelling the candidature issued by the RPSC may be summarised as under: Name Date of order Total experience calculated in the order Mahendra 8.8.1997 (Ann.6) W.P. No. 4889/97 Experience from 30.1.91 to 20.2.96 (period of 30 days for the month of June 1991 was excluded) Gan Raj meena 25.7.1997 (Ann.6) W.P. No. 5282/97 Experience from 21.2.91 to 20.2.96 (period of 30 days for the month of June 1991 was excluded) Jitendra Kumar Sirolia 8.8.1997 (Ann.5) W.P. No. 5303/97 Experience from 1.2.91 to 20.2.96 (period of 30 days for the month of June 1991 was excluded) The petitioners averred in the petitions that no teaching work was done during summer vacation thus the decision of the respondents in not counting the period of June 1991 (summer vacation) is irrational and without any basis as the payment of salary has no nexus with the experience. Experience of 5 years was to be counted from the date of initial appointment including the summer vacation. The experience certificates were issued by the competent authority whereby the petitioners were shown in regular service from the date of initial appointment. Experience of 5 years was to be counted from the date of initial appointment including the summer vacation. The experience certificates were issued by the competent authority whereby the petitioners were shown in regular service from the date of initial appointment. As such the petitioners should be treated as teaching regularly irrespective of the fact that salary for the month of June 1991 was drawn or not.The petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Head Master (Secondary School) as per their merit. 4. The respondents in their reply pleaded that candidature as well as provisional selection of the petitioners was rightly rejected as they did not possess the required teaching experience of five years. The petitioners were not in service in the month of June 1991 and they had only worked from the date of their initial appointment till May 31, 1991 and they were given reappointment in the month of July 1991. They were not paid salary for the month of June 1991. Thus they did not possess five years experience and were not eligible to be appointed as Head Master (Secondary School). 5. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record. 6. Admittedly, if the period of 30 days for the month of June 1991 is added, the experience of five years teaching is complete and each of he petitioners is entitled to be appointed as Head Master (Secondary School). Therefore it is to be seen as to under what circumstances the salary for the month of June 1991 was not paid to the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not satisfactorily reply the pointed quarry as to the intention behind the act of discontinuing the services of the petitioners from May 31, 1991 till June 30, 1991, to deprive them from the salary for a period of summer vacation. 8. In Kalla Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1992 (3) WLC (Rajasthan)713 , it was indicated by this Court that-(Para 5) "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order terminating the services of the petitioner was wholly void and illegal. By terminating the petitioner off and on before the commencement of the new academic session and re-employing him at the start of the session is not permitted under law. By terminating the petitioner off and on before the commencement of the new academic session and re-employing him at the start of the session is not permitted under law. The petitioner had also not been given the salary equivalent to those who were doing the same work. What is noteworthy is that the gap between the appointment and termination, off and on, as aforesaid, is very short. This shows the mal-intention of the management which had no right to terminate the services of a teacher, like the petitioner, who had been working for a long period. In fact, the petitioner had become entitled' for confirmation but the same was also refused to him on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that non-possession of requisite qualification, is an after-thought invented to justify the aforesaid termination order. By creating artificial break for a short period, the respondents created a ground for pleading that the petitioner could not be confirmed. The termination order as well as refusal to confirm the petitioner is malafide and the same can not be sustained in law." 9. The 'hiring and firing' policy of 'adhocism' was deprecated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ratan Lal v. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 478 , thus-(Para 3) "We strongly deprecate the policy of the State Government under which adhoc teachers are denied the salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation by resorting to the fictional breaks." 10. The petitioners came to be appointed as Senior Teacher against the vacant posts after following the provisions contained in Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules 1971 (for short the Rules of 1971). A look at the appointment orders demonstrates that the appointment of the petitioners was absolutely on urgent and temporary basis and it was also made dear that their services would be terminated at the end of education session, but they would be allowed to rejoin their duties in next educational session. The educational session 1990-91 came to an end on May 31, 1991 and new educational session 1991-92 commenced from July 1, 1991. In pursuant to the appointment orders the petitioners were allowed to work in new educational session and they were placed on two years probation. The educational session 1990-91 came to an end on May 31, 1991 and new educational session 1991-92 commenced from July 1, 1991. In pursuant to the appointment orders the petitioners were allowed to work in new educational session and they were placed on two years probation. The salary for a period of June 1991 was not paid to the petitioners. 11. The conditions of service (including recruitment conditions) for the post of Senior Teacher are governed by the Rules of 1971. According to rule 2(1) of the Rules of 1971 substantive appointment means an appointment made to a substantive vacancy after due selection by any of the methods of recruitment prescribed under the rules. Since the petitioners were appointed after following the procedure contained in Part N of the Rules of 1971 against substantive vacancies, their appointment as Senior Teacher was substantive in nature. 12. I find merit in the submissions of Mr. Sanjay Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Jitendra Kumar Surolia. Word 'experience' implies skill facility practical wisdom given for personal knowledge feeling an action and also the course or process by which one attains knowledge or wisdom. Experience is entirely different factor than that of the incident of salary. As period of leave without pay of a regular appointee is included in his service experience similarly the period of June 1991 in the case of the petitioners may be considered the period of leave without pay. 13. In my considered opinion the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Senior Teacher was substantive in nature and the act of the State Government denying the salary to the petitioners for the period of June 1991 (summer vacation) by resorting to fictional break was highly unjustified and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus the period of June, 1991 can not be ignored for the purpose of counting teaching experience of the petitioners for giving them appointment on the post of Head Master (Secondary School). The impugned orders of the RPSC cancelling the candidature and provisional selection of the petitioners are therefore arbitrary and deserve to be quashed. 14. In the result, the petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned orders of the RPSC cancelling the candidature and provisional selection of the petitioners are therefore arbitrary and deserve to be quashed. 14. In the result, the petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. Impugned orders of RPSC incorporated in para 3 of this order are set aside and the respondent RPSC is directed to send the petitioners names to the State Government for appointment on the post of Head Master (Secondary School). The respondent State Govt. is directed to appoint the petitioners on the post of Head Master (Secondary School) as per their merit in select list with all consequential benefits. Costs easy.Petition allowed. *******