SBCWP NO..3732/1996– PURUSHOTTAM DAS V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. . . : ORDER DATED 3.12.2008 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3732/1996 Purushottam Das versus The State of Rajasthan and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Mukesh Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Bhati, for the respondents. DATE OF ORDER : 3rd December, 2008. O R D E R 1. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Roop Kumari Joshi V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Decided on 24.2.1999. The Division Bench in the aforesaid group of cases held as under: “The learned Single Judge has held that Rule 9 of the Rules is mandatory in regard to determination of year- SBCWP NO..3732/1996– PURUSHOTTAM DAS V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. . . : ORDER DATED 3.12.2008 2/4 wise vacancies, placing reliance on the decision in Union of India V/s N.R. Banerjee and others (1997 (9) SCC 287). The learned Single Judge, having held that Rule 9 of the Rules was mandatory, has read Rule 9 and Rule 4 harmoniously. He was of the view that interpretation of Rule 9 of the Rules that the vacancies should be determined every year and such vacancies must be filled up immediately or at all, would render the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules nugatory. Relying on the various decisions of the Apex Court including the decision in Sultana Begum V/s Prem Chand Jain ( (1997 (1) SCC 373) in which it was observed that “the courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces ione of the provisions as a 'dead letter' or 'useless lumber' is not harmonious construction”, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the provisions of Rules 4 and 9 are to be read harmoniously and rightly so in our view. In the cases on hand, it was not shown that the act of the respondents in not filling up the posts was either arbitrary or malafide. AS already stated above, the State Government under Rule 4 of the Rules has got power to create any post or leave a post unfilled or abolish a post or allow to lapse any post, permanent or temporary. In the order dated 2.7.1997 made by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4992/91 (Prahlad Das Sewak's case), subsequent events were taken note of an the writ petitions were disposed of reserving liberty to challenge the process of selection or other irregularity, if SBCWP NO..3732/1996– PURUSHOTTAM DAS V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. . . : ORDER DATED 3.12.2008 3/4 any. Hence, it was not open to the appellants to rely again on Anjani Kumar's case (supra), which case was held not applicable to the appellants and others in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4992/91 (Prahlad Das Sewak's case) for the reasons stated in the roder dated 2.7.1997. In that, it was specifically noted that the respondents were already facing the problem of excess Commerce Teachers and the vacancies were not available. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge declined to issue any direction to the respondents as sought for by the writ petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions by the order under appeal. We do not find any good or valid reasons or ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the result, for the reasons stated, we find no merit in these appeals. Hence, they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (A.S.Godara)J. (Shivaraj V. Patil) C.J. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since the stay application of the petitioner was rejected, the reversion of the petitioner to the post of Teacher Grade II became operative and the petitioner cannot be said to have held position of School Lecturer SBCWP NO..3732/1996– PURUSHOTTAM DAS V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. . . : ORDER DATED 3.12.2008 4/4 for long number of years. Reversion of the petitioner in the present case upon selected candidates being available became operative after 6 years of adhoc promotion held by the petitioner. He further submits that later on, the petitioner might have been considered against the vacancies of subsequent years and might have been promoted as School Lecturer. 3. In view of the controversy decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Roop Kumari Joshi's case, reversion of the petitioner upon selected candidates becoming available through DPC cannot be held to be illegal. The writ petition thus stands covered by the aforesaid decision and is found to be without any force. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.9 Ss/-