JUDGMENT 1. 1. Since grievance of both the petitioners is identical, I propose to decide these writ petitions by a common order. 2. Both the petitioners were respectively appointed as Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in the Department of Anesthesia and Senior Demonstrator in the Department of Pathology in the month of September 1995 or urgent/temporary basis in accordance with the proviso to Rule 30(1) of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short 1962 Rules) pursuant to the recommendations of Central Selection Committee. 3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short RPSC) advertised the posts of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) (Anesthesia)/Senior Demonstrator, Pathology vide advertisement No.1/97-98 dated April 3, 1997. The petitioners submitted applications and appeared before the RPSC but they were not declared successful. Those who were selected were appointed and posted vide order dated January 23, 1998. The respondents vide order dated July 15, 1998 terminated the services of the petitioners on the ground that they were not selected regularly. The petitioners in the instant writ petitions seek to quash the said order dated July 15, 1998 and pray to allow them to continue as Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Anesthesia/Senior Demonstrator Pathology. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have right to continue on urgent temporary basis since duly sanctioned posts are still available and unless all the sanctioned posts are filled by the RPSC the services of the petitioners could not have been terminated. Reliance is placed on Dr. Abhijit Sutradhar vs. State of Rajasthan and others (D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 1091/2000 decided on April 18, 2002 ). 5. Per contra the respondents averred that once the petitioners participated and failed in the selection process, they have no right to claim continuance in service, even if posts are lying vacant. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 7. From the material on record it is revealed that sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in the department of Anesthesia and Senior Demonstrator in the Department of Pathology are still lying vacant. The Division Bench of this court in Dr. Abhijit Sutradhar's case (supra) in some what similar situation, observed thus : "It is not the case of the respondents that the need for manning all or even some of the posts in Animal Husbandry Department has ceased or has reduced. The Division Bench of this court in Dr. Abhijit Sutradhar's case (supra) in some what similar situation, observed thus : "It is not the case of the respondents that the need for manning all or even some of the posts in Animal Husbandry Department has ceased or has reduced. Doctors are still needed by the department. By terminating the services of the appellants we fail to understand what the department is seeking to accomplish. It is also to be noted that there is no allegation against the appellants about their working efficiency or they being not upto the mark in the service. When persons are required by the department why those persons who are already continuing in service for long years should be terminated ? The impugned action of the respondents has the adverse effect of ruining the career of the appellants. Some of the appellants must have become overage for Government job by now and it will be difficult for them to get any other Government appointment at this stage. The manner in which the Government has functioned in this case suggests exploitation of workers by the employer. The Government is seen to be taking advantage of the prevailing unemployment in the country and indulging in exploitation. The appellants had no option but to take these jobs when they were offered the same in the year 1998 because of the non-availability of jobs. They accepted whatever terms that were offered to them by the Government. The Government employed them when it needed their services and now for technical procedural wangles the Government wants to throw these persons on the roads to be left to fend for themselves. The Government being a model employer should not indulge in such practices. We could understand a situation of termination of service on account of posts being abolished or need for keeping the posts filled disappearing. When the need for posts continues, it will be a better policy to give these doctors chances to get regularised and continue them in service, subject, of course, to their remaining fit to discharge their duties." 8. In the case on hand the services of the petitioners were terminated despite the vacancies exist. It is not a situation of termination of services on account of post being abolished or need for keeping the posts filled disappearing. In the case on hand the services of the petitioners were terminated despite the vacancies exist. It is not a situation of termination of services on account of post being abolished or need for keeping the posts filled disappearing. When the need for posts continues, as regularly selected RPSC candidates are still now available for the posts which have been manned by the petitioners, it will not be proper on the part of the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioners. 9. In Rajendra Kumar Rawat etc. etc. vs. State of Rajasthan ( 1988 (1) RLR 315 ) , the Division Bench of this Court propounded that the services of the legal assistants who were appointed on urgent temporary basis could not have been discontinued when the vacancies of legal assistants were still available. It was observed as under : "In view of our finding recorded earlier that 41 posts of Legal Assistants are available, after adjusting all the regularly selected candidates and the ad hoc appointees of the year 1982 it must be held that there was no valid reason for not continuing the services of the petitioners and other Legal Assistants who were appointed during the year 1984 to 1986 and the action of the State Government in not continuing the services suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." 10. As already stated the petitioners were appointed under Rule 30 of the 1962 Rules pursuant to the recommendations of the Central Selection Committee therefore even if they were not regularly selected, their services could be continued in view of the fact that sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Anesthesia/Senior Demonstrator Pathology were still lying vacant. 11. For the reasons aforementioned I allow these writ petitions and set aside the impugned order dated July 15, 1998. The petitioners who are still continuing in the service pursuant to the interim orders passed by this court, they shall be continued on the posts held by them. This order will however not come in the way of the respondents in considering any action against any of the petitioners on account of maintaining efficiency and discipline in service. There shall be no order as to costs.Petitions allowed. *******