REKHA RANA Vs. JAIPAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the Notification No. Estt.(RJS)/118/2003, dated 20.10.2003 wherein 19 posts for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (in short 'RHJS') were advertised. Out of these 19 posts 11 posts were shown as current vacancies and 8 posts shown as backlog vacancies. A true copy of the notification is Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. It was specifically mentioned in the notification that these are subject to orders of the Supreme Court in four SLPs (subsequently numbered as CA No. 5699 to 5702/2000) relating to the decision in the case of Veena Verma.

(2.) On 19.7.2004 the learned counsel for the respondent-High Court stated that the actual appointments pursuant to the impugned notification dated 20.10.2003 will not be made unless permitted by this Court. Consequently, it is stated that no appointments have been made in pursuance of the impugned notification.

(3.) As noted above, the impugned notification itself mentioned that it was being made subject to the decision in Veena Verma's case. We have held in Veena Verma's case (in CA Nos. 5699, 5700 and 5702/2000 decided today) that the strength of the service is as mentioned in Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, and for varying the strength there has to be a specific order under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. Mere creation of posts without a specific order under Rule 6(2) in our opinion only creates ex cadre posts, but does not amount to varying the strength of the service. We have held in that decision that the Division Bench of the High Court was in error in its judgment dated 30.4.1999 in holding that whenever new posts are created, the strength of the service automatically increases even though there is no specific order under Rule 6(2)in this connection amending Schedule-I.