RAJANDAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the above -mentioned writ petitions, common questions of law have been raised, therefore, all the petitions are decided by single order. It is claimed by the petitioners that the Combined Competitive Examinations for Lower Division Clerks, for which advertisement was issued on July 23,1987 (Ex.1) were not held in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for brevity, 'Rules, 1957') and option of giving two Districts for appointment was not given, therefore, meritorious Candidates could not get appointment. It has been prayed that the selection made and appointments given be, therefore, quashed and set aside. Alternatively, out of the remaining vacancies in Bikaner district, the petitioners be given appointment as lower Division Clerks.

(2.) THE Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for brevity, 'RPSC') issued an advertisement dated July 23, 1986, inviting applications for Lower Division elerks combined Competitive Examination for filling up the vacancies in Subordinate offices, Rajasthan Secretariat and RPSC in accordance with the procedure Laid down in Rules 19,20 &21 of the Rules, 1957. There were, in all 888 vacancies in Subordinate offices. Exhibit Number, as given in petition No. 299/90 are given in this order; although in other petitions also, more or less, similar documents have been filed. A printed Information Pamphlet (E.2) was also supplied by RPSC along with application form obtained by the petitioners for the said examination. In E.2 number of vacancies in subordinate offices has been shown District -wise. It has also been shown that the candidate has to mention one District, in which he desires to serve, as is mentioned in clause 3 (ga) on page 3 and clause 8(BA) on page 4 of Ex.2. Bach of the petitioners mentioned name of one District for appointment in Subordinate offices in Column 10 of the application. The petitioners appeared in the typing test conducted in the months of December 1987 and October, 1988. The result of the aforesaid examination was declared by RPSC on April 17, 1989 and recommendations were sent to respondent No. 1 in July, 1989, but the marks sheet (E.5) of the said examination was sent to the petitioners around December, 1989. All the petitioners, except one in petition No. 927/90, have secured 45.5 % marks to 66.5 % marks However, in Bikaner District, appointment were given to candidates, who even secured 38% marks. Thus, petitioners, who have secured much better marks, have not been able to get appointment, since they did not give choice of Bikaner District for appointment.

(3.) IT is submitted by Mr.M.I.Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for Respondent No. 2, and Mr.Ashok Parihar, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for Respondent No. 1 that in the advertisement (Ex.1) itself, it is mentioned that the posts can be increased or decreased. Therefore, it was not necessary for the RPSC to issue any corrigendum regarding increase of the posts in various Districts. It is also submitted that candidates were asked in the said advertisement to verify the Rules, therefore, it was for the candidates themselves to have verified and pointed out any discrepancy in the advertisement were examination was held and not when the results were announced. Now, since these petitioners have not been given appointments, they have raised these questions. It is contended that Rule 21 of the Rules, 1957 was amended on August 18,1987 with retrospective effect from February 3,1986 and there after, the proviso to the same became redundant. Hence, it was not necessary for RPSC to have given choice of two Districts, since the appointment was to be made District -wise, the candidates were asked to given choice of one District.