MAQBOOL AHMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition discloses the deplorable conditions in which low paid employees of the Medical and Health Department of the State Government are placed, inspite of the promulgation of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Rules' ).

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Mechanic Grade II on December 22, 1954. He was there after promoted as Mechanic Grade I on March 1, 1956. On March 7, 1975 the petitioner was further promoted as a Foreman Grade I, purely on the temporary basis for a period of 4 months or until a person selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee was available, whichever was earlier. THE petitioner's grievance is that inspite of the promulgation of the Rules in the year 1965, the number of vacancies in the cadre of Foreman Grade I have not so far been determined nor any substantive appointments have been made but ever since the promulgation of the Rules in 1965, persons have been continuing to hold the posts of Foreman Grade 1 in an ad hoc or temporary capacity. THE petitioner's further grievance is that persons junior to him namely, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted earlier to him to the post of Foreman Grade I and they are still continuing as such although their apppoint-ment on the post of Foreman Grade I was illegal and they should be ousted from such posts.

(3.) THE learned Deputy Govt. Advocate was unable to submit before this Court as to what administrative difficulties were experienced by the respondent, the Director, Medical and Health Services, who is the appointing authority, in determining the number of vacancies, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9. It may be pointed out that the provisions of Rule 9 embodies a direction requiring the appointing authority to determine each year the number of vacancies anticipated during the following twelve months. In the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Dr. (Miss) Damyanti Dadhich (1), a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with a similar rule contained in the Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 197! observed that Rule 9 is in the nature of a statutory instruction to and for the guidance of the appointing authority and further that if the appointing authority fails to comply with it, his failure in that behalf may create administrative difficulties and he would certainly be answerable to his superiors for his failure in that behalf Thus, a statutory duty has been cast upon the appointing authority under Rule 9 to determine the number of vacancies every year and as the appointing authority has failed to discharge its statutory duty for over 10 years, such failure on his part is likely to adversely affect the legal rights of the petitioner. Unless the number of vacancies are determined under Rue 9, the further process of making substantive appointments under Rule 24 cannot be undertaken and thus the entire process of making substantive appointments in the department on the junior posts of Foreman Grade I are at a stand-still because of the noncompliance of the provisions of rule 9 by the appointing authority.