DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant batch of writ applications, involves similar question of law, therefore, the writ applications are being adjudicated upon by this common judgment.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are: that the State -respondents invited applications from eligible candidates for selection by direct recruitment to the post of Live Stock Assistant vide advertisement dated 6th August, 2013, against 1483 vacancies, subsequently revised to 1710. The advertisement contemplated 70% weightage to the educational and technical qualifications stipulated in the Schedule and 30% weightage/bonus marks to the candidates, who are in possession of more than 7 years experience of working in the Animal Husbandry Department and were still continuing.

(3.) MR .N.K. Maloo, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, reiterating the pleaded facts, submits that the direct recruitment to the post of Live Stock Assistant is governed by the Rules of 1977. Clause 5 of the advertisement deals with the educational and technical qualifications as mentioned in the Schedule to the Rules of 1977. Clause 11 of the advertisement deals with the selection procedure wherein percentage of marks of Senior Secondary and percentage of marks of Technical Qualification will be added and average will be taken and the percentage arrived at will be given weightage to the extend of 70%. Clause 11.5 of the advertisement stipulates that a candidate in possession of more than 7 years of working in the Animal Husbandry Department will be allowed 30% marks by way of weightage/bonus marks and thereafter, the merit list will be drawn. An Experience Certificate issued by the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Rajasthan would be only recognized for the purpose of grant of weightage/bonus marks of 30%. Referring to the entry at serial number 3 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1977, the learned Senior Counsel argued that in the Schedule, the educational qualifications have been provided and there is no requirement of any experience as far as 90% posts for direct recruitment from open market are concerned. However, experience of 5 years of regular service on the post of Live Stock Attendant has been provided in respect of 10% posts reserved for direct recruitment from out of the in -service candidates. Thus, providing for 30% marks on account of weightage/bonus in the advertisement, weightage of educational and technical qualifications has been reduced to 70%, is contrary to the mandate of the Rules of 1977. Moreover, Rules 19 of the Rules of 1977 deals with the 'Scrutiny of Applications', enabling the Commission or the Appointing Authority to call upon as many candidates as may be desirable to appear for interview and written test. Therefore, the action of the State -respondents in introducing a new qualification of experience of more than 7 years and reducing the weightage of educational and technical qualifications to 70%, by an administrative order, is impermissible in law and thus, contrary to the provisions of the Rules of 1977. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the Appointing Authority by an administrative order, supplanted the qualification incorporated in the Schedule to the Rules of 1977. Furthermore, restricting the grant of weightage/bonus marks of 30% only to the candidates having experience of more than 7 years abruptly qualifies for 30% marks whereas those having experience of less than 7 years, are deprived of proportionate weightage/bonus marks and therefore, the criterion adopted was neither rational nor logical. Be that as it may, if weightage to experience is given, then it should have been in proportion to the length of experience. Hence, the stipulation of experience of more than 7 years of working in the Department of Animal Husbandry, is a 'tailor -made' provision intended to accord benefit to such candidates. Moreover, Writ Petition Number 1898 of 2006 (Ramkaran and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan) was dismissed on 13th April, 2007, declining the claim of regularization since the petitioners were appointed only for a fixed period on a consolidated salary in the light of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors.: (2006) 4 SCC 1. Referring to the advertisement dated 27th January, 2011, wherein 525 posts of Live Stock Assistant were advertised and the State -respondents intended to accord 40% weightage, prescribing 10% bonus marks for each year's experience subject to maximum for 40%, was interfered with by this Court in Writ Petition No.9001/2011 (Indraj Singh Choudhary and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.). However, during the pendency of the writ application, the criteria was changed to 25% weightage, divided proportionately to the length of experience. Ultimately, the writ application was partly allowed on 24th August, 2012, by the learned Single Judge holding that weightage may be given to experience, but it cannot be more than 10%. However, the selections and appointments were made thereafter in compliance of the judgment rendered by the learned Single judge, are subject matter of litigation before this Court by the candidates, who were unsuccessful. Limiting the grant of 30% weightage/bonus marks, on the basis of experience, only to the Live Stock Assistants appointed in the Departments of Animal Husbandry while excluding those who are working in other Departments of the State Government has also been assailed as an action, which suffers with the vice of discrimination, denying equality as well as equal opportunity of consideration for public employment and thus, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The learned counsel further contended that the post of Live Stock Assistant, is the lowest post in the cadre of service and therefore, introduction of an element of experience is not at all necessary.