STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BRIJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Rajasthan has challenged the judgment dated 13. 8. 1996, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the State to give emergent temporary appointment to the Respondent on the post of Revenue Inspector in the Municipality.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that according to the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (henceforth to be referred to as "the Rules of 1963", for short) the post of Revenue Inspector is a cadre post. Initially, in 1984, the Department of Local Bodies and Self-Government had advertised about 2000 vacancies for different posts, including the post of Revenue Inspector. However, after receiving the applications, the Department did not fill up the vacancies. THErefore, some of the applicants challenged the omission on the part of the Department in not filling up the vacancies by filing writ petitions before this Court. Eventually, in the case of Ratan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1990 (1) RLR 512) vide judgment dated 26. 4. 89, a Division Bench of this Court directed that "different Commissions for different Municipal Boards/councils throughout the State of Rajasthan will advertise different categories of vacant posts in the subordinate service and if any of the petitioners or any other person who had applied earlier has become overage, the age shall be relaxed by the government up to five years and the State Government is directed to pass necessary orders in that respect. THE Commissions shall invite applications and make selections. THE Municipal Boards/councils are directed to send the requisitions to the Commissions and then the Commissions shall invite applications and make selections. THE entire process shall be completed within six months. THEreafter, the Commissions shall forward the names of the candidates selected to the different Municipal Boards/councils and then the appointing authorities will make the appointments within two months thereafter. Thus, in all eight months time is allowed for the entire process. " But before this judgment could be implemented, the State Government filed a Review Petition which was decided vide order dated 1. 2. 90. According to the said Order the benefit of the Judgment dated 26. 4. 89 was to be confined only to the twenty-two petitioners who had approached the High Court.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment.