MUNISH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above mentioned writ petitions involved same question of law, therefore, are disposed of by single order. THE petitioners in these writ petitions have prayed that sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 (a) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1957') which was introduced by notification dated May 30, 1985 be quashed and declared as violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution and the petitioners may be appointed by way of transfer in the Secretariat services as Stenographer (Hindi) and their seniority be fixed according to the selection treating their selection in the year 1980 batch with all consequential benefits.

(2.) BRIEFLY it may be stated that in the year 1980 the Raj. Public Service Commissioner short 'the RPSC')advertised the post by different advertisements under Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1970') and as well as separately by advertisement under the Rules, 1957 which were published in newspapers on March 13, 1980. The peti-tioners submitted their applications and separate written test was held for post of Stenographer against each advertisement for Secretariat Services and Subordinate Services. In the merit list prepared by the R. P. S. C. the petitioner's names were placed at Serial Nos. 166,157,162,147,160,169,153,155,149. 170 respectively. In all merit list of 172 candidates was sent by the R. P. S. C. to the Government out of which 98 candidates were given appointment substantively in Secretariat services and 74 candidates remained in the merit list till 24. 1. 82, the waiting list was to expire on 23. 1. 83. In between 24. 1. 82 and 23. 1. 83 43 candidates were given appointment out of the above list, thus 29 candidates remained unappointed on 23. 1. 83 the date on which the reserve list was to expire. It is submitted by the petitioners that those who were not appointed directly in Secretariat service were appointed on temporary basis in the Subordinate Services on the clear understanding after filling their option form, that after their appointments in Subordinate services whenever posts become available in the Secretariat services they will be transferred to the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Services. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the persons who stood upto No. 142 in the merit list were from time to time transferred on account of the availability of posts from Subordinate Services to Secretariat Services but the persons who stood in the merit list from 143 onwards continued in Subordinate services and further transferred in the Secretariat services was stopped in view of the amendment was made in the Rules, 1957 vide notification dated May 30, 1985.

(3.) THE petitioners were not entitled to have been appointed in the Subordinate Offices since they had not been selected under Subordinate Service Rules, 1957, but with a view toprovide them employment, since they had been declared successful in the test held by R. P. S. C. under Secretariat Service Rules, 1970, an amendment vide notification dated May 30, 1985 in the Subordinate Rules, 1957 was made arid Rule 24 (a) (3) was inserted. This evidently is a beneficial piece of legislation and by amending this Rule the respondent provided avenues for employment of the petitioner who would have otherwise remained unemployed. None of the petitioners was forced to join the service in Subordinate Offices but was given option to do so, with clear understanding that if the vacancies are available in Secretariat Services they will be absorbed in Secretariat. However, since there were no vacancies in Secretariat Service, it can not be said that the respondents were bound by doctrine of promisory estoppel. M/s Vij Resins Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was a case in which on the basis of representation made by the State Government private parties set-up industries in the State by making substantial investments, but lateron an Act was enforced which provided for State monopoly of the industry set up by the private parties, obliterating rights of private parties and enabling the State to get out of its commitment. It was therefore held by the Apex Court that doctrine of promissory estoppel will be applicable against the State. THEre is no such situation in the petitions under consideration. THE respondents had made it abundantly clear that the petitioners shall get appointment in Secretariat Services only when there are vacancies in the Secretariat. Since there were no vacancies and after the list expired, the petitioners cannot claim applicability of doctrine of promisory estoppel. Thus, there is no question of any discrimination and there is no violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution, as contended by the petitioners.