ANTIM RAMDEO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions raise a common question of law and facts and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE District Judge, Balotra, vide Notification dated 27. 9. 89, invited applications for appointments on seven posts of Lower Division Clerk and for empanelment against the future vacancies. THE petitioners, in pursuance to this Advertisement, applied for the post of Lower Division Clerks in the District Judgeship, Balotra. THE petitioners were called for written examination, which were held on 26. 11. 89. THE petitioners qualified the written examination and, therefore, they were called for typing test, which was held on 21. 1. 90. THE petitioners qualified both these tests. After the written examination and the typing test, a merit list (Annexure 2) was prepared on 22. 1. 90, in which the name of petitioner Antim Ramdeo was shown at serial number 9, the name of petitioner Durgesh Kumar was shown at serial number 10 and that of petitioner Balkishan at Serial Number 12 and that of Deva Ram at serial number 13. Before the applications were invited for giving appointments on the post of Lower Division Clerk, in the months of February a. 03. 1989. Out of these four persons, Dewa Ram Goyal, Smt. Shanti Ramawat, Naresh Kumar Avasthi and Om Prakash Jingar were given appointments by the respondents on the post Lower Division Clerk in the months of February a. 03. 1989. Out of these four, persons, Dewa Ram qualified the written examination and the typing test but in the merit list, his name was shown at Serial Number 13, while Smt. Shanti Ramawat, Naresh Kumar Avasthi and Om Prakash Jingar could not qualify the examination and, therefore, their names did not find mention in the merit list. After the declaration of the result, the respondents gave appointments to first six persons and retained Smt. Shanti Ramawat, Naresh Kumar Avasthi and Om Prakash Jingar though they were declared unsuccessful in the examination and, also, allowed Dewa Ram to continue in service though his name was shown much below the names of the petitioners in the merit list. As appointments were not given to the petitioners as well as to Virendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar Tiwari, the petitioners, Virendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar Tiwari, therefore, filed writ petitions. After the writ petitions were filed, Virendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar Tiwari, whose names appeared at Serial No. 7 and 8 in the merit list, were given appointments but the petitioners were not provided appointments. One Ghan Shyam Das was, also, given appointments by the respondents as per the direction of the High Court. In this way, nine vacancies were filled-up by the respondents. As the appointments were not given to the petitioners, the petitioners, therefore, preferred the present writ petitions.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the writ petition, filed by petitioner Antim Ramdeo is allowed while the writ petition, filed by petitioners Durgesh Kumar and Bal Kishan, are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. . .