M K GAUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Director Education Government of Rajasthan sent a requisition vide communication dated 8. 8. 1995 to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission") for selection of suitable candidates to fill twenty-five vacancies of College Lecturers in Geography. THE break-up of these vacancies was - twelve of the year 1994-95 and thirteen of the year 1995-96. Out of these vacancies four were reserved for Scheduled Castes, three for Scheduled Tribes and five for Other Backward Classes. In pursuance of the requisition, the Commission invited applications from eligible candidates vide advertisement dated 8. 11. 1995. Last date fixed for receipt of the applications was 30. 12. 1995. 118 candidates applied for the post. On scrutiny, 115 candidates were found eligible to appear in the interview. Before commencement of the interviews, demand for additional thirteen vacancies was further sent to the Commission vide communication dated 12. 2. 1996 by the Director Education Government of Rajasthan under proviso to Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules 1986 (for short `the Rules of 1986' ). THEreafter interviews were held from 15. 4. 1996 to 18. 4. 1996. THE Commission prepared select list of thirty-eight candidates, forwarded same to the Government vide letter dated 9. 5. 1996, and prepared reserve list of thirty -eight candidates, as required under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1986. On receipt of the select list the Director Education Government of Rajasthan gave appointments to thirty-seven persons vide order dated 1. 7. 1996. THEreafter on 3. 7. 1996 four persons from the reserve list were given appointments on account of non joining of four persons who were given appointments from the select list. Ashok Kumar Gupta, who remained unsuccessful in the interview, filed writ petition seeking direction of restraint against the respondents - State of Rajasthan and Rajasthan Public Service Commission - to make further appointments from the reserve list on additional vacancies which were not advertised. THE learned Single Judge vide order dated 7. 7. 1997 allowed the writ petition and the respondents were restrained from making further appointments operating the reserve list. Aggrieved by the said order, present special appeal is filed.

(2.) THE questions for adjudication in this case are as to what shall be the scope and extent of R. 20 of the Rules of 1986, and whether appointments can be made from the reserve list on unadvertised vacancies and whether Rule 20 can be read in isolation or has to be read with Rule 16 of the Rules of 1986. Before we take up the question of interpreting the rules, we may refer to certain decision of the apex curt wherein scope and ambit of reserve/waiting list are laid down.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid decision, the principle set out by the Supreme Court is very clear in regard to operation of reserve/waiting list inasmuch as it would be improper exercise of power to make appointments over and above the advertised vacancies. It is only in rare and exceptional circumstances and in emergent situation that this rule can be deviated from. It should be clearly spelled out as to under what policy such a decision is taken. Exercise of such a power has to be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness. Before an advertisement is issued, it would, therefore, be incumbent upon the authorities to take into account the existing vacancies and anticipated vacancies. It is not a matter of course that the authorities can fill up vacancies other than advertised.