FAZLUR REHMAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Fazlur Rehman Khan, was originally appointed as a Computer in the Regional Transport Survey Authority on 13. 10. 1965, and on his being declared surplus on the said post, was absorbed in the Evaluation Department on 1. 10. 1967. He was promoted to the posts of Investigator and Research Assistant on 14. 10. 1968 and on 28. 01. 1975, respectively, and was confirmed on the latter post on 15. 09. 1982. THE Rajasthan Evaluation Service Rules, 1979 (for short, "the Rules") came into force with effect from 15. 02. 1979, and in term of Rule-26 of the Rules, the petitioner was given an urgent temporary appointment on the post of Evaluation Officer vide the order dated 25. 09. 1979. THE Rules provided that the post of Evaluation Officer was to be filled in to the extent of 66. 2/3 per cent by direct recruitment and 33. 1/3 per cent by promotion from amongst the Research Assistants having experience of three years. THE Rules further provided that a direct recruit to the post of Evaluation Officer should have the qualification of Second Class Post-Graduate degree in Economics/sociology/statistics/mathematics/ Commerce/public Administration from an Indian or Foreign University, candidates with a Post-Graduate degree in Mathematics or Statistics or Public Administration should have had Economics or Sociology as one of the subjects in degree course and should have, one year experience of handling important statistical records on the post of Statistical/research Assistant or on an equivalent post in a Government Department or University or Research Organisation and one year's experience of conducting Socio-Economic Sample Surveys, designing of schedules, supervising the field work and drafting memoranda and reports. On receipt of a request from the State Government (the respondent No. l), the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (the respondent No. 2) invited applications for filling in six posts of Evaluation Officers and thereafter selected the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 and recommended their names for being appointed on the said posts vide the letter dated 31. 05. 1986. THE petitioner filed this writ petition on 23. 06. 1986, challenging the selections of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 on the ground that they were not eligible for being selected for the posts of Evaluation Officers and also contending that the vacancies for direct recruitment and for promotees, had not been correctly calculated by the respondent No. l and claiming to be entitled to be regularly appointed on the post of Evaluation Officer. He pleaded that the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 had been working as Statistical Assistants and the respondents Nos. 6 to 8 were working as Research Assistants before their selections and that the nature of their duties was such that they could not acquire the experience required for filling in the posts of Evaluation Officers by direct recruitment. It was also pleaded that if the vacancies had been correctly calculated, it would have been found that there were only three vacancies available for direct recruitment to the post of Evaluation Officer and that in these circumstances, the selections of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8, were not proper and he was entitled to be given regular appointment on that post,after making the correct calculation of the vacancies for the promotee officers. On receipt of notice, the writ petition has been contested.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.

(3.) CONFRONTED with this position, the learned counsel for the petitioner, did not press the point any further.