PARAS RAM SUTHAR Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sangeet Lodha, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Govind Mathur for respondent No. 4.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 23rd March 1995 appointing respondent No. 3 and 4 as Carpenters in the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur and Jodhpur. The petitioner is one of the applicant for the said post. The eligibility for the post was that an incumbent must either possess III Certificate in Carpenter Trade alongwith two years' experience of a reputed establishment/shop or an incumbent must have passed examination of Secondary or its equivalent examination with five years experience of a Government Office or establishment. According to the petitioner, he was fully eligible for the post in question, since he was a graduate and was possessing experience of a Carpenter of a reputed establishment. The petitioner applied for the same and he was called for interview vide communication dated 13. 02. 1995 and was directed to appear before the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court for interview under Anx. 2. The petitioner appeared on 6th March 1995 and, thereafter, he was called upon for an oral test on 7. 03. 1995. According to the petitioner, he answered all the questions very well and thus, in view of his performance and in view of his services which he has rendered since August 1993, he was hopeful of being selected and appointed as Carpenter but his hopes were belied when he came to know that vide order dated 23rd March 1995 the respondent No. 3 and 4 have been appointed as Carpenter in the regular pay scale of Rs. 950-1680 under Anx. 3. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) PER contra, it is submitted by Mr. Sangeet Lodha and Mr. Govind Mathur that the Chief Justice of this Court, by invoking his jurisdiction under Rule 28 which deals with qualification for appointment under the Rajasthan High Court Conditions of Service of Staff Rules, 1953 and by also invoking rule 17 of the same Rules, can relax the provisions of any of these Rules. Rule 2b and Rule 17 which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in this case, run as follows:- "2b. Qualification for appointment:- The qualifications required for appointment to the various categories of posts by departmental promotion or otherwise shall be such as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, by general or special order, specify. 17. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice may relax the Provisions of any of these rules in any particular case provided that the case shall not be dealt with in a manner less favourable than that provided in the rules. "