RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions the petitioners have made a prayer for issue of a writ of mandamus to appoint them on the post of Amin in pursuance of their selection made by the competent authority. The petitioners have stated that they had appeared in the competitive examination held under the orders of the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur. After they had successfully completed the examination they were asked to undergo training. A large number of persons who were higher in merit were given appointment by the Settlement Commissioner. However, the petitioners were not given appointment. The petitioners have stated that notwithstanding the availability of the posts their appointments have been delayed. The petitioners have referred to a statement made by the Government on the floor of the legislative asset by in answer to a starred question of Dr. Ujla Arora, Member of Legislative Assembly, wherein the Government had stated that the appointments of Amins could not be made on account of dis -binding of two T.A.D. parties of the Settlement Department at Udaipur and Banswara. Now directions have been given to the settlement Commission for issuing order of appointment. After this statement was made the Settlement Commissioner wrote a letter dated 22.4.91 to the Genera] Administration Department seeking extension of the non -availability certificate issued on 5.7.90 Notwithstanding this letter of the Settlement Commissioner, the appointment orders were not issued in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) YESTERDAY the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate was directed to seek Instructions from the Department and state as to why appointments have not been given to the petitioners notwithstanding the availability of the vacant posts.

(3.) IN view of the facts that the petitioners have been given appointment by order dated 24.6.92, relief sought for by them has been given by the Department itself and, therefore, no further direction is necessary to be given by this Court.