JUDGMENT 1. - This order shall govern disposal of other connected appeals also, as common questions of law are involved in all of them. Thus, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Even though the case has a long and chequered history but at this juncture, it is not necessary to go into the facts of the case in greater details. However, thumbnail sketch of the facts of the case is as under: (i) State of Rajasthan had issued a notification dated 15.9.1992, advertising 59 vacancies to be filled up for the post of Ayurveda Chikitsak. The advertisement contained a note that the post could either be increased or even be decreased as per requirement. (ii) The said vacancies were required to be filled up in exercise of the powers under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules. 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rules'), which contemplates for urgent temporary appointments. The Rule itself stipulates that the candidate(s) given appointment against the said rule would be in employment only for a period of one year. (iii) Appellants had applied for the said post. According to them. their names had appeared in the select list. State, initially, had given appointments to sixty-six candidates,. Later on, eleven more candidates were given appointments, on urgent temporary basis. By the end of the year 1993, fourteen more candidates were given appointments, on account of different judgments having been passed by this Court. Admittedly, appointments far exceeded the advertised vacancies. 3. It was contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that even though more than hundred vacancies became available till the end of the year 1992 and necessary sanction was also accorded to fill up the same, yet the vacancies were not filled up by those candidates whose names had appeared in the select list. It was, therefore, contended by appellants that select list was partially operated by the State and was closed abruptly, without there being any plausible reason in this regard. Some of the candidates were denied appointments even though their names had appeared in the select list. Therefore, they were constrained to approach the Writ Court. 4. Initially, the writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge. Some of the candidates were denied appointments even though their names had appeared in the select list. Therefore, they were constrained to approach the Writ Court. 4. Initially, the writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge. On review being filed by the unsuccessful petitioners, the review petition was allowed by learned Single Judge, State preferred writ appeals before Division Bench against the said order of learned Single Judge allowing the review petition and giving directions to the respondent-State. The Division Bench then allowed the writ appeal filed by the State and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge to decide it on merits, in accordance with law. After remand before learned Single Judge, the matter was heard once again and the writ petitions were dis- missed. 5. This order passed by Single Bench, after remand, was subject matter of challenge before Division Bench, in which a detailed order came to be passed by Division Bench on 29.5.2002. In concluding para of the said judgment of Division Bench dated 29.5.2002.. following directions have been given- "For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1047/94 on 25.3.1994 and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 57/94 on 18.12.2000 are set aside. The State Government is directed to consider the cases of the appellants and given them appointments if they are found otherwise eligible for giving appointment under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1973. This exercise shall be done by the State Government within a period of one month from the placement of this order before the authority concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. Judge Judge" 6. State Government, feeling aggrieved by the said order, took up the matter to the Supreme Court, by filing special leave petitions, matter had come up before the Supreme Court on 28.7.2003 and the following order came to be passed "Upon hearing Counsel the Court made the following:- ORDER Intervention application is dismissed. heard learned Counsel on both sides. We see no merit or justification to interfere with the order of the High Court. The special Leave petition is dismissed." (Emphasis supplied by us) 7. heard learned Counsel on both sides. We see no merit or justification to interfere with the order of the High Court. The special Leave petition is dismissed." (Emphasis supplied by us) 7. Few other candidates who had earlier not approached the Court or who may have been watching the ultimate outcome of the litigation, taking clue from the judgment of Division Bench, affirmed by the Supreme Court, filed separate writ petitions. 8. Despite the order of Division Bench dated 29.5.2002. granting re- lief to the candidates. whose names were there in the select list, and the said order having been affirmed by the Supreme Court, those writ petitions came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on different dates. Some of the writ petitioners, whose writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge, filed writ appeals before this Court, which came up for hearing on 2.12.2005, before Division Bench of this Court. 9. On the said date, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, following order came to be passed- "In course of hearing heavy reliance was placed on a Bench decision of this Court dated 29th May, 2002 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 107/2001 and connected matters, titled Pramod Shanker Mishra v. State of Rajasthan. We have prima facie doubts about correctness of the said decision. Since the decision was rendered by a co- ordinate Bench we refrain from expressing our concluded opinion. The proper course is to refer the case of larger Bench. It is ordered accordingly. Judge C.J." 10. On account of the aforesaid order having been passed in the appeal. Larger Bench was constituted, and that is how, we have heard the matter. 11. At the threshold, learned Counsel appearing, for appellants strenuously contended that since no specific point of reference has been made to Larger Bench nor any question of law has been formulated to be answered by Larger Bench, therefore, Larger Bench is not obliged to answer the same and the matters deserve to be remitted to the Division Bench to be heard on merits. in accordance with law. 12. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents has opposed the prayer made by learned Counsel for the appellants. 13. For sufficiently long time, we have heard much arguments on this question only. 14. in accordance with law. 12. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents has opposed the prayer made by learned Counsel for the appellants. 13. For sufficiently long time, we have heard much arguments on this question only. 14. In fact, the position stands crystal clear from various judgments of the Supreme Court rendered on this question from time to time. 15. The first to be referred to, is in Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and others, (1992) 4 SCC 97 , Para 5 of the said judgment. which deals with the issue, is quoted hereinbelow- "Even if the prayer is examined as if it were an independent substantive proceeding, the tests apposite to such a situation would also not render the grant of this relief permissible. The considerations against grant of this prayer are obvious and compelling. Indeed, no co-ordiante Bench of this Court can even comment upon. let alone sit in judgment rendered in a cause or matter before another co-ordiante Bench. If request is made that a Judge should refuse to hear a matter either on the ground that there was a reasonable apprehension or is exclusively that of the particular Judge or the Bench of which he is a member. At that stage. another Co-ordiante Bench cannot be invited to examine and pronounce on this question. Judicial propriety and discipline as well as what flows from the circumstance that each Division bench of this Court functions as the Court itself renders any inference by one Bench with a judicial matter before another lacking as much in propriety as in jurisdiction." 16. After having gone though the said judgment, it is manifest that a Co-oridnate Bench is neither competent nor authorised to comment on the correctness or otherwise of the judgment or order of another Co-ordiante Bench. Meaning thereby that the Co-ordinate Bench cannot sit as an Appellate Court over order of another Co-ordiante Bench as judicial propriety does not permit so. 17. The next in line is the judgment in Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India and others, 1981 (Supp.) SCC 38 , which says that if a question of law is referred to by Single Judge or Division Bench, the Bench must decide that question only and send the case back to Single Judge alongwith its answer to the question. The next in line is the judgment in Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India and others, 1981 (Supp.) SCC 38 , which says that if a question of law is referred to by Single Judge or Division Bench, the Bench must decide that question only and send the case back to Single Judge alongwith its answer to the question. This clearly stipulates that only the question of law that has been referred to, has to be answered and it will not be proper for Larger Bench to deal with any other issue, which has not been referred to. 18. Similarly. the Supreme Court in Kerala State Science and Technology Museum v. Rambal Co. and others, 2006 (45) AIC 90 (SC) : (2006) 6 SCC 258 held as under- "When reference is made on a specific issue either by a Single Judge or Division Bench co a larger Bench i.e., Division Bench or Full Bench or Constitution Bench, as the case may be. the larger Bench cannot adjudicate upon an issue which is not the question referred to." 19. There is yet another latest judgment of Supreme Court on the is- sue projected in this appeal, in T.A. Hammed v. Viswanathan, (2008) 3 SCC 243 . In this judgment, it has been categorically held by the Apex Court that only that question is required to be answered by Larger Bench, which has been referred to it and it cannot go beyond that. We may profitably quote para 12 of the said judgment, which reads as under- "In the case at hand also almost an identical situation had taken place that a reference was made by the learned Division Bench of the Kerala High Court to the Full Bench and the Full Bench after answering the reference went to decide the revision petition itself on demerits, which the Full Bench had no jurisdiction to do as the revision petition was not referred to the Full Bench for decision. Since, only reference was made to the Full Bench, the Full Bench should have answered the question referred to it and remitted the matter to the Division Bench for deciding the revision petition on merits. Consequently, we set aside that part of the impugned order dated 31.1.2003 whereby the Full Bench has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants herein." 20. Consequently, we set aside that part of the impugned order dated 31.1.2003 whereby the Full Bench has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants herein." 20. In the light of aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, it is well settled law that we are required to answer the question of law which has been formulated but nothing beyond that. 21. However, the order dated 2.12.2005, quoted herienabove. does not reflect, show, indicate or suggest as to correctness of which part of the order dated 29.5.2002 was doubted. 22. We have no barometer to assess as to what had transpired on the said date, before the Division Bench. In absence of particular reference to any part of the judgment or in absence of reference of question of law to be answered by this Court, we are not obliged to answer the same. 23. In the light of foregoing discussions: we are not legally bound to answer the reference. Thus, we refrain from doing so. 24. Admittedly, appellants' appeals have not been heard or decided on merits as a necessary consequence thereof, the matters are to be remitted to Division Bench for deciding the same on merits. in accordance with law. We accordingly do so. 25. Keeping in mind that matters are old and appellants have been running from pillar to post ever since they had applied for the posts in the year 1992, it is desirable that this appeal and the connected appeals be heard by Division Bench expeditiously. 26. Both parties agree that they would appear before Division Bench on 21.5.2009. Registry is directed to list all the matters before the Division Bench as per Roster for final hearing on the said date. 27. Copy of this order be retained in the file of each case.Reference remanded back. *******