JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction declaring the method adopted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) in getting the preferences expressed in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination under two separate captions namely `state Services' and `subordinate Services' to be illegal and unconstitutional, with a further direction to replace the system of securing preferences in one combined list instead of two separate lists from all the candidates. The petitioner has also prayed that he may be appointed to the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service instead of Rajasthan Jail Service.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the RPSC advertised 142 posts of "state Services' and "subordinate Services" which were subsequently increased, for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services in November, 1990 to be filled in by combined competitive examination under the provisions of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 (in short `the Rules of 1962' ). THE petitioner while working as School Lecturer filled the application form for State as well as Subordinate Services. THE petitioner gave preferences for the State Services as well as Subordinate Services as under: " State Services 1. Rajasthan Administrative Service 2. Rajasthan Police Service 3. Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Service 4. Rajasthan Food & Civil Supplies Service 5. Rajasthan Accounts Service 6. Rajasthan Cooperative Service 7. Rajasthan Industries Service 8. Rajasthan Tourism Service 9. Rajasthan Jail Service 10. Rajasthan Insurance Service 11. Rajasthan Employment Service Subordinate Services 1. Rajasthan Tehsildar Service 2. Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services 3. Rajasthan Food & Civil Supplies Subordinate Services 4. Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services 5. Rajasthan Industries Subordinate Services 6. Rajasthan cooperative Subordinate Services 7. Rajasthan Devasthan Subordinate Service. "

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, further considered the record of the case and the rival submissions of the parties.