MAHENDRA SURANA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS identical questions of fact and law are involved in all the above writ petitions as such the same are disposed of by one common judgment.

(2.) IN all the above writ petitions validity of Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Emergency Rules"), has been challenged. All the petitioners are the members of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "r. A. S. Rules" ). Part III of R. A. S. Rules deals with recruitment to the service. Rule 7 of the R. A. S. Rules provides sources of recruitment. There are four sources of recruitment to the service after the commencement of these rules (a) by a competitive examination; (b) by promotion of administrative subordinate; (c) by selection from among the extension officers out of the categories mentioned therein; (d) by special selection, from among persons other than administrative subordinates and persons governed by item (c) above serving in connection with the affairs of the State. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the R. A. S. Rules recruitment by competitive examination, promotion, selection from amongst extension officers and special selection shall be made in the ratio of 16:6:2:1.

(3.) IT is next contended that actual method of recruitment under the Emergency Rules is the same and once they are appointed to Rajasthan Administrative Service, they merge with the general cadre of Rajasthan Administrative Service and no distinction remains with reference to the source of recruitment. Once all Rajasthan Administrative Service Officers become member of the service, no distinction can be made with reference to their source of recruitment for the purpose of assignment of seniority Reliance in this regard is placed on the following rulings in Roshan Lal Tandon vs. Union of India (1 ). The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad vs. A. V. R. Siddh-anti (2) and Mohammad Shujat Ali vs. Union of India (3 ). On the basis of the above rulings it is contended that rule regarding seniority must have a co-relation with the object sought to be achieved by it and with the distinction sought to be made between the persons recruited under the R. A. S. Rules of 1954 and under the Emergency Rules, 1976. IT is submitted that Rule 25 of the Emergency Rules fails in both the tests, ft makes an absolute artificial classification of persons recruited under the Emergency Rules, 1976 from the larger class of persons who constitute Rajasthan Administrative Service.