RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. YASHWANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, these appeals have been preferred by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the RPSC', for short) and in few cases by the State of Rajasthan. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the appellant - RPSC issued an advertisement on 18.8.2004 for selection to the post of Lecturer in various subjects, for the post of Lecturer (English), 271 posts were advertised. Appellant - RPSC, after holding test and interview, declared the result of the selected candidates. So far as the petitioners-respondents are concerned, they were kept in the reserve list, which was consist of 38 candidates. Aforesaid reserve list was issued on 16.9.2006. On publication of the main select list, 77 posts remained unfilled due to non-availability of the reserved caste candidates, thus at this stage, few petitions were filed claiming appointment on the post of Lecturer (English). The main thrust of the claim was that as per the existing rule prior to 10.10.2002, unfilled vacancies of reserved caste has to be filled up by normal procedure, however, respondent-appellant failed to apply the rule and erroneously kept petitioners in the reserve list. This is more so when the Government issued a circular clarifying the position that any vacancy prior to 10.10.2002 would be dealt with as per the unamended rule, the claim of the petitioners-respondents was accepted by the learned Single Judge holding that the petitioners should have been placed in the main list as unfilled reserved vacancies are of the period prior to amendment in the rules by notification dated 10.10.2002 and accordingly, directions were given to consider the candidatures of the petitioners for appointments.

(2.) These appeals are filed by the appellants - RPSC and State of Rajasthan mainly on the ground that 77 unfilled vacancies have wrongly been considered of the period prior to 10.10.2002. In fact, these 77 vacancies are of subsequent years. Other ground raised is that reserve list cannot be operated after the expiry of its life.

(3.) Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for appellant-RPSC submits that without verification of the facts as to whether unfilled vacancies were of a period prior to amendment in the rules i.e. 10.10.2002, learned Single Judge presumed all the unfilled vacancies of a period prior to 10.10.2002 and issued directions accordingly. The judgment based on presumptions needs to be set aside, the other argument raised herein is that reserve list cannot be operated after expiry of its life more so in regard to few petitions which were filed subsequent to the judgment in the cases of Vijay Choudhary and Yashwant Kumar i.e. on 22.5.2008. The appellants herein preferred review petitions in two cases but those were also dismissed and no challenge to those orders have been made. The petitioners, who had approached this Court after lapse of time should not have been given same relief as was given to the earlier petitioners, namely, Vijay Choudhary and others and Yashwant Kumar and others.