SUMAN SAHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who claim to have been placed in the reserve list for recruitment to Rajasthan Judicial Service ["RJS" for short hereinafter) have sought direction that the reserve list be operated and they should be given appointments to the posts of Civil Judge in the RJS.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that on 19th February, 1998 the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court addressed a communication to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Law and Legal Affairs Department, Jaipur informing that the number of existing and anticipated vacancies in the RJS upto 31st December, 1998 had been worked out to be 81. The communication gave brake-up regarding reservations in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhaney v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1993 SC 477 : (1993 Lab IC 129). A request was made in the said letter that the requisition be sent to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer ("RPSC" for short hereinafter) for advertising 81 vacancies for recruitment to the RJS. In the end, it is stated in the said letter :

(3.) We have quoted the portion of the said letter because a lot will turn on the same for purpose of decision of this case. In pursuance of the requirement notified by the High Court to the State Government an advertisement was issued on 19th December, 1998 regarding 81 vacancies in the RJS to be filled through direct recruitment. In the advertisement it was mentioned that the number of posts may be increased or decreased. A revised advertisement in respect of the aforesaid posts was issued by the RPSC on 4th January, 1999. The advertisement only extended the last date for submission of application forms. This advertisement was published in Rajasthan Rozgar Sandesh on 1st February, 1999. The advertisement provided that the selection process was to comprise of written test followed by interview and final merit list was to be prepared on the basis of the aggregate marks secured in written examination and interviews. By a notification dated 11th January, 1999 issued by the State Government 28 new posts were created in the RJS. It is the case of the petitioners that these 28 posts were not included in the 81 posts notified by the High Court as vacant posts to the State Government and for which the RPSC had issued advertisement for recruitment. The petitioners claim that the reserve list was meant to take care of such a situation. The reserve list consisting 28 names, therefore, has to be operated and appointments are to be made from the candidates in the said list. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents which includes the State Government, the High Court and the RPSC is that these posts are included in the 81 posts notified in the advertisement for purposes of selection. The respondents have stated that all existing vacancies as on 19th December, 1997 and anticipated vacancies upto 31st December, 1998 including 30 new courts (posts ?) to be created in terms of statement made by the State Government before the High Court for opening 180 more courts upto the end of Ninth Five Year Plan, i.e. upto 31st March, 2002, constituted 81 vacancies for which requisition was sent to the RPSC. The respondents have stated in clear and unambiguous terms that the said new posts were taken into consideration while determining the number of vacancies as 81.