ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. 1. This petition is pending for hearing on admission sicne October, 1999. Either it has not been admitted nor dismissed. There is no point in keeping such matters pending for hearing on admission for months together and to add to the piling heap of arrears. The short point is to be adjudicated and, therefore, this petition is being decided finally at Motion Hearing stage, in the interest of justice. 2. Shri A.K. Sethi, counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Janpad Panchayat, Sitamau Distt. Mandsaur, invited applications for appointment to the post of "Shiksha Karmi Grade-III" by its advertisement dated 20-5-1998 published in "Dainik Dhwaj". He pointed out that two separate categories were classified by the said advertisement itself and out of them one was "Shiksha Vibhag" and second was "Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission". According to his case 309 posts were categorised for the appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-Ill from Shiksha Vibhag and 16 posts were classified for appointment from Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. It is the case of the petitioners that they were called for interview, their interviews were separately taken and they were given the appointments on 28-8-1998 (Jaideep Maheshchandra), 10-8-98 (Manoj Satishchandra), 10-8-98 (Vijakumar Prah-lad), 26-8-1998 (Mukesh Katlana), 26-8-1998 (Smt. Shakuntakla Narendra Singh) (Annexurcs P-4 to P-8). 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that some complaints were made about the appointments from category "Shiksha Vibhag" and the said complaints were inquired into by Collector, Mandsaur. Collector, Mandsaur passed a judgment and order on 20-9-99 (Annexure P-10). It is the case of the petitioners that by the said judgment and order he directed respondent No. 2 Janpad Panchayat Sitamau to prepare a common list of the candidates pertaining to both the categories, i.e., (i) "Shiksha Vibhag" and (ii) "Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission". He described the process for processing the applications calling the candidates for interview, to effect the interviews and then to select the candidates by such interviews by preparing a common list. The petitioners contend that as their category is different as indicated by the advertisement itself, there was no necessityfor Collector, Mandsaur to deal with their appointments because the complaints were not in respect of the appointments made from the category "Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission". The petitioners contend that as their category is different as indicated by the advertisement itself, there was no necessityfor Collector, Mandsaur to deal with their appointments because the complaints were not in respect of the appointments made from the category "Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission". Reiterating the said stand, Shri A.K. Sethi submitted that for no reason, for no fault, the petitioners arc put to hardship because their legitimate appointment orders have been cancelled by Collector, Mandsaur without jurisdiction and without authority. He submitted that the said judgment and order passed by the Collector, Mandsaur is without authority, without jurisdiction and, therefore, illegal and therefore, it needs to be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari and petitioners need to be appointed on the said posts in view of their appointment orders by issuing writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 accordingly. 4. Mrs. Chaphekar submitted that Collector, Mandsaur has passed a correct and legal order and has directed respondent No. 2 Janpad Panchayat, . Sitamau, to prepare a common list of the candidates who would be called for interview and appointment. She submitted that it is within authority of Collector, Mandsaur to do so and the order which is put to challenge is within jurisdiction which Collector, Mandsaur is empowered to exercise. Shri Amit Agarwal appearing for respondent No. 2 submitted that respondent No. 2 has to obey the order of the Collector and, therefore, it has started a process of. processing the applications and the appointments as indicated by the said judgment and order passed by the Collector, Mandsaur. Shri Agarwal submitted that respondent No. 2 has gone some steps ahead and, therefore, the process which they have started to follow will be impeded if this writ petition is allowed and the prayer made by the petitioners is allowed. He further submitted that in view of obedience of the order passed by the Collector, Mandsaur, respondent No. 2 has not only prepared a common list but has issued some orders to some candidates from the said list on 11-10-1999. He submitted that if this writ petition is allowed and writ as prayed by the petitioners is granted in their favour, the said process would be jeopardised. He further submitted that in view of that, the persons to whom such appointment letters have been sent, are necessary parties. 5. He submitted that if this writ petition is allowed and writ as prayed by the petitioners is granted in their favour, the said process would be jeopardised. He further submitted that in view of that, the persons to whom such appointment letters have been sent, are necessary parties. 5. Shri V.K. Gangwal submitted that for no reason the respondents whom he represent would be affected and, therefore, a protection be rendered to them in this context. The same is the submission advanced by Shri Saraswat. 6. While dealing with this matter, it needs to be clarified that the persons who have applied for the posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade-Ill from category "Shiksha Vibhag" would not be affected at all because their category is all together different. It is further needs to be mentioned that the advertisement in question was by itself self-eloquent. It categorised the inflow of applications from two categories-- (i) "Shiksha Vibhag" and (ii) "Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission". It has been further clarified by giving separate serial numbers to these categories. The category "Shiksha Vibhag" has been given serial No. 1, in the said advertisement. The category "Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission" has been given serial No. 2. These two categories are further distinctly classified by putting them one below other. Not only that, it has been mentioned in the advertisements itself that the posts which are vacant or the candidates which could be appointed to the posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, from "Shiksha Vibhag" would be 309. It has been also clarified that the candidates which could be appointed to the posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade-111 from "Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission" would be 68. Thus, Ihcre is absolutely no connection whatsoever, so far as mixing with each other is concerned. The inflow of the applications has been distinctly separate. As submitted by Shri Sethi and as it has not been contradicted by the counsel for respondents, the petitioners were interviewed separately. Though an attempt has been made to show that it was a part of the same process though the dates of interviews were different. But even then, there is no mixing of each other and the source of applications for appointment is quite different. 7. Though an attempt has been made to show that it was a part of the same process though the dates of interviews were different. But even then, there is no mixing of each other and the source of applications for appointment is quite different. 7. When there were complaints about the appointments of the candidates from "Shiksha Vibhag" category, there was no need for Collector, Mandsaur to deal with the candidates coming from category "Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission" because there were no complaints in respect of the appointments from that category. When these two categories were so separately mentioned in the advertisements itself, when the interviews were to be taken on different dates, there was absolutely no need for Collector, Mandsaur to mix them without any authority and jurisdiction. It has been attempted from the side of respondents to show that the order which has been challenged is quite different and does not touch the prayer made by the petitioners in the writ-petition; but that is not so because in a separate paragraph on internal page 5 of the judgment and order, Collector, Mandsaur described the procees to be adopted for the purpose of preparing a common list. He has specifically mentioned that a common list of approved candidates be prepared from both the categories-- (i) Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, and (ii) School Shiksha Vibhag. Not only that he has directed respondent No. 2 to prepare a common list of the candidates according to "Pravarga". When Collector, Mandsaur, was mixing these two categories which were distinctly indicating so, in the advertisement there was no necessity of again mixing them in the common list and again prepare a list category-wise "Pravarga". This reflects nothing but a confusion. It reflects nothing but snatching out the authority and jurisdiction which Collector, Mandsaur did not have so far as appointment of the petitioners was concerned. They were appointed in the year 1998. Their category was shown to have been different right from the date of publishing of the advertisement. They were interviewed separately. This reflects nothing but a confusion. It reflects nothing but snatching out the authority and jurisdiction which Collector, Mandsaur did not have so far as appointment of the petitioners was concerned. They were appointed in the year 1998. Their category was shown to have been different right from the date of publishing of the advertisement. They were interviewed separately. When that was so and when there was no complaint, it was totally improper on the part of the Collector, Mandsaur, to snatch in the authority and to call hardship unnecessarily to the petitioners when their appointment was in accordance with the process to be followed by virtue of the said advertisement, and which was untainted by the process which was followed and which was in accordance with said avertisement. 8. An attempt was made by the side of respondents to submit that Collector, Mandsaur has passed the said judgment and order in view of the instructions given by the State of M.P. Again this is a fallacious argument. When there was nothing to touch the appointment of the petitioners which was a result of a due process, what was there with the State of M.P, to give such instructions ? The concerned officers who gave such instructions on behalf of State of M.P. were acting without authority, without jurisdiction and were acting unnecessarily. 9. What is wanting the authority, what is wanting the jurisdiction and what is arbitrary and illegal cannot be permitted to survive because what is illegal ab initio would be illegal continuously till it survives. What is illegal, what is perverse cannot be permitted to live in existence because its existence by itself is the result of a pervert process. What has been born out by a pervert process and what is born out without a legitimate authority and jurisdiction and is unfair and what is unfair would be arbitrary and that needs to be quashed by the powers conferred by Indian Constitution, more particularly Article 226, as early as possible to protect the justice. 10. While doing so, this Court is fully clarified that this order would not be touching the legitimate interest of the persons who had applied from the category "Shiksha Vibhag" as indicated by the said advertisement and, therefore, respondent No. 2 would not be obstructed in following the process indicated by the said judgment and order passed by Collector, Mandsaur. 10. While doing so, this Court is fully clarified that this order would not be touching the legitimate interest of the persons who had applied from the category "Shiksha Vibhag" as indicated by the said advertisement and, therefore, respondent No. 2 would not be obstructed in following the process indicated by the said judgment and order passed by Collector, Mandsaur. The things which have been done by it in that context are not touched in any way by this order. This judgment and order deals with the claim of the petitioners is respect of the appointment orders which are at Annexures P-4 to P-S. They be given appointments which they are entitled to have. In that context the rule "first appointed would go last" and in whose favour there is "first appointment" he would get the first posting. These appointments are distinctly in relation to the category indicated by the said advertisement of "Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission" category. These appointments are to be made keeping in view the legitimate reservation. The necessary exercise is to be done by respondent No. 2 and it should lake care that what it docs is correct and legal. The said appointment is to be made in view of the earlier list and for that, that portion of the judgment and order passed by the Collector, Mandsaur stands set aside. The judgment and order passed by the Collector, Mandsaur stands intact so far as first category "Shiksha Vibhag" is concerned. 11. Thus, the writ stands issued in favour of the petitioners in the nature of certiorari partially and in the nature of mandamus partially for doing as ordered by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It is made clear that other respondents stand on their own merits and in view of the process which is directed to be followed by Collector, Mandsaur in response to the complaints received in context with the appointment from "Shiksha Vibhag". The petitioners would be getting the appointments in view of Annexures P-4 to P-8 but they would not get the pay, salary, remuneration, wages whatsoever, for the period for which they have not worked. No order as to cost, keeping in view the complications created unncessarily by Collector, Mandsaur.