S K MISHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above-mentioned writ petitions have been filed regarding filling-up thirteen seats of Statistical Officers, on which some Officers are working on ad hoc basis. The petitioners, who appeared for appointments to the posts of Statistical Officers as direct recruits and their names were placed in the reserve list, have prayed that they should be given appointment to the post of Statistical Officer, on which, promotees, by way of ad hoc appointment are working. The petitioners working as ad hoc appointees, by way of promotion, have prayed that they have subsequently been selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), held in the year, 1989, therefore, they should be allowed to continue on this post and have further prayed that the petitioners, whose names have been shown in the reserve list, have no right to file writ petitions. Therefore, ft will be appropriate to dispose of these petitions by a single order.

(2.) For the purposes of factual position, reference will be made to Writ Petition No. 187OF 1985.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. R.C. Joshi and Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned vvmnsel, who represent such petitioners, who appeared for selection by way of direct recruitment and were also working on the lower posts in the concerned Department, that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) invited applications for direct recruitment to the post of Statistical Officer vide its advertisement No. 6OF 1983-84 (Ex.1). They appeared in the written test and were called for interview on August 18, 1984. The RPSC, vide Ex.2 dated August 21, 1984, issued a list of twenty candidates who were selected and their names were recommended to the Government for appointment on the post of Satistical Officer. These persons have been appointed on the said post by the Government of Rajasthan vide order dated January 19, 1985 (Ex.4). Another list (Ex.2A) of the same date was issued, which consisted of ten names, which were kept by the RPSC in the reserve list and the same was to be sent to-the Government, if a requisition was received within a period of six months, as laid down in proviso to Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Economics & Statistical Service Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules, 1958'), it is further submitted that the petitioners, whose names have been included in the reserve list, were not appointed, since the persons appointed on urgent/temporary/ad hoc basis, by way of promotion, against the vacancies of direct recruitment quota, resisted these appointments. It is also submitted that prior to amendment in the Rules, 1958 as provided under Sub-rule (b) of Rule 8, vacancies for the post of Statistical Officer occurring in a year were required to be filled up by promotion from amongst Statistical Assistants by selection through RPSC in the proportion of 1:2, i.e. 33 per cent by promotion and 67 per cent by direct recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 provided that if the Selection Committee is satisfied that in a particular year suitable persons are not available for appointment by promotion, the vacancies existing in that year may be filled up by selection. This sub-clause was amended by notification dated May 27, 1983 and it was provided that If the Government is satisfied in consultation with RPSC that suitable persons are not available for appointment by either method of recruitment in a particular year, the appointment by other method in relaxation of the prescribed proportion, may be made in the same manner as specified in that rule. By further amendment vide Notification dated October 17, 1984, the proportion 1:2 was changed to 1:1 and, thus, 50 per cent appointments were required to be made by promotion and fifty per cent by direct recruitment. This amendment was given retrospective effect w.e.f. April 1, 1981 (Ex.5). It is also submitted that after 1976-77, no appointments by direct recruitment were made on the post of Statistical Officer, even though vacancies have been advertised through RPSC. No. DPC was held even for according promotion to the post of Stastical Officer, but it was held only In the year, 1981, on the basis of which orders dated November 16, 1981 were passed for appointments on the post of Statistical Officer by way of promotion. In this manner, after 1977, upto December 31, 1980, 71 appointments have been made by promotion, whereas no appointment was made by way of direct recruitment. It is pointed out that as per the prescribed Rules, only 24 appointments could have been made ^ by promotion and seventy four appointments should have been made by direct recruitment. It is further pointed out that, as is evident from Exs. 6 to 13, apart from the above-mentioned 71 regular appointments given to promotees, thirteen Statistical Officers are continuing on ad hoc basis. In fact, the petitioners, whose names are Included in the reserve list, are entitled to be appointed on these posts. It is further pointed out that the State, In its return, has admitted that 52 posts, which were otherwise meant for direct recruitment, were filled up by way of promotion and, therefore, it is submitted that till fifty two seats are now filled up by way of direct recruitment, no appointments can be given by way of promotion. It is also pointed out that since the period of six months was to expire, this Court directed the Government to call for the reserve list from the RPSC, which is now lying with the Government.