ORDER
Per: Sheel Nagu, J.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.
2. The order under review passed by this Court in W.A No. 88/2012 upholds the order of the Writ Court that once applicability of , 1979 (for brevity ‘Rules of 1979) is not in question, no fault can be found in the innocuous order passed by the Writ Court. It was further held that the appellant (State) can very well seek desired details from the institution where the employee worked and, therefore, non impleadment of the employer by the employee in the writ petition is not fatal. This Court further directed that it shall be open to the appellants to consider the case of the respondents/petitioners according to the Rules and communicate the outcome to them.
3. The ground taken in this review petition is that this Court while passing the order under review ignored the fact that the Rules of 1979 cannot be applied in view of the said Rules having been repealed on 20.02.2008 on coming into effect of the new rules namely M.P Ashskiya Shikshan Sanstha Anudan Niyam, 2008 (for brevity ‘Rules of 2008’)
4. Undoubtedly, the Rules of 1979 have been repealed by Rules of 2008 w.e.f 20.02.2008 and, therefore, do not exist for being invoked on and from 20.02.2008
5. Thus, it is contended by the State counsel that the order under review is polluted by palpable error.
6. Perusal of the Rules of 2008 reflects repealing clause in shape of Rule 8 which is reproduced herein below for convenience:-
7. Reading of the above said saving clause indicates that the orders passed under the repealed Rules of 1979 are saved.
8. The saving clause thus saves the decision taken under the repealing Rules. In the case at hand, the respondents/petitioners where entitled to be considered in their capacity as terminated teachers of Non-Government Aided institution, for being absorbed in the Government School under the Rules of 1979. Thus, in case, the respondents/petitioners would have been considered under Rule 4 & 5 of Rules of 1979 at the time immediately after their termination which took place in 2001 then appropriate orders would have been passed much prior to 2008 when the Rules of 1979 were repealed. Thus the right which though had accrued in favour of the respondents/petitioners but could not materialize due to fault of the review petitioners/State and its functionaries cannot get extinguished merely due to subsequent repealing of the Rules of 1979.
9. Moreso, the rights and liabilities of the rival parties arising out of the termination of service of respondent employees in 2001 deserve adjudication based upon the legal scenario prevailing in 2001 and thereafter till 20.02.2008
10. In view of the above, the respondents/petitioners are entitled to be considered for absorption under Rules of 4 & 5 of the Rules of 1979 from immediately after the date of termination of their services from the non Government aided institution against the vacancies available till 20.02.2008 when the Rules of 1979 were repealed.
11. Accordingly, this review petition deserves to be disposed of with a direction that consideration of the respondent employees for absorption in Government schools shall be made in terms of Rules 4 & 5 of the Rules of 1979 against the vacancy in the Government schools which existed till 01.02.2008
12. With the aforesaid observation, this review petition stands partly allowed to the extent of modifying the order under review dated 16.03.2012 passed in W.A No. 88/2012 as indicated herein above.