ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above writ petitions involve same facts and law and, therefore, are being decided together.

(2.) VIDE advertisement No. 5 of the year 1996-97 dated 5. 8. 1996, the Rajasthan Public Prosecutor Commission had invited applications for filling up 10 posts of Assistant Agriculture Research Officers (Botany) in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200. The RPSC after completing the formalities of selection had recommended 10 names for appointment to the department. All the 10 persons were appointed. The RPSC also prepared a reserve/waiting list of six persons. All the five petitions find place in the reserve list. Ashok Kumar Bansal was at No. 1, Shiv Prakash Maheshwari was at No. 2, Banshidhar Palsania was at No. 3, Bhanwar Dan Detha was at No. 4, Shyam Sunder Meena was at No. 5 and Ramesh Chand was at No. 6.

(3.) ASHOK Kumar Bansal, the petitioner, also even goes on to say that there were as many as 12 vacancies instead of 10 and in any case there were 11 clear vacancies prior to the issuance of the advertisement as one vacancy had become available on 27. 9. 1996 and as such instead of sending advertisement for 10 vacancies, the advertisement should have been sent for 12 or in any case for 11 vacancies and relies on a circular issued by the department on 6. 11. 1997, copy of which is attached as Annexure-6 to the rejoinder which provides the contingencies when appointments can be made from the reserve list i. e. ; (1) when person so selected does not join and the vacancy remains vacant; (2) if any vacancy has become available for the same year in which requisition was sent which was at the time of requisition could not be included for any reason and, therefore, submits that for the reason that one vacancy had become available and thus the petitioner ASHOK Kumar Bansal was entitled for the said post which fact is denied in additional affidavit by the respondents saying that no such vacancy was available.