VIKAS SHARMA Vs. DIST.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying that the respondent - District Judge, Rajsamand be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner. The right whereof he claims to have crystalised, pursuant to the advertisement/ notification dated 10.3.2014 issued under the provisions of the Subordinate Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1986"). The facts appertain to the present writ petition are that the District Judge, Rajsamand invited applications for 18 vacancies of Lower Division Clerks for the various Courts in the District Rajsamand; out of which six posts were meant for Family Court, Rajsamand, while other 12 posts were earmarked for District Legal Services Authority, Rajsamand.

(2.) The petitioner having requisite qualification vied in the recruitment process for appointment on the post of LDC and after clearing the requisite written examination was interviewed. The petitioner secured 186 marks and was placed at merit position No.9 by the respondent. In furtherance thereto, a notice No.2641 dated 24.7.2014 came to be published by the respondent, notifying the category- wise list of successful candidates, which comprised of six candidates from general category, two from female, one from scheduled caste, two from OBC and one from general (as no candidate belonging to ST category was found eligible). In terms of the selection list dated 24.7.2014, first eight candidates from general category could secure appointment, while the petitioner having secured merit position No.9, could not get appointment as the select list showed appointment to only 13 candidates as against the 18 posts advertised vide notification dated 10.3.2014.

(3.) The petitioner kept his fingers crossed for about 15 months of the publication of the aforesaid select list, as the respondents had published list of only 13 candidates out of the advertised vacancies of 18. According to the petitioner, when he enquired from the respondent about the reasons of not giving him appointment, he was orally informed that the respondents have decided to fill only 13 posts, without disclosing the reasons for such decision. Faced with such situation, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court, asserting his right of appointment. Petitioner's case is that he was enlisted at merit position No.9, for which he is entitled for appointment against the posts meant for general category; respondents could not confine the appointment to 13 posts, when they had advertised 18 vacancies of LDCs; and that five posts were still lying vacant, against which the petitioner deserves to be appointed. The respondent - District Judge, Rajsamand filed a reply to the writ petition indicating therein that though 18 posts were advertised but they comprised of anticipated vacancies also. In other words, they contended that at the time of issuing the advertisement, there were only 13 clear vacancies of LDCs (12 for District Legal Services Authority and one for Family Court, Rajsamand) and five posts were expected to be vacant, in wake of the promotions which were due to five LDCs in the coming year. Such anticipated vacancies, however could not fructify for the reasons beyond his control. It has been asserted by the respondent that five LDCs could not be promoted and hence the vacancies which were anticipated, could not turn into a reality and as a result whereof, the remaining five candidates, including the petitioner could not be afforded appointment. It has been stated by the respondent that the appointments were given strictly on the basis of merit and no person less meritorious than the petitioner has been given appointment. It has been asserted that after preparation of merit list when he proceeded to call candidates for document verification, he had with him only 13 posts to be filled in, hence, first 13 eligible candidates were invited for document verification to be held on 2.8.2014 vide notice dated 24.7.2014. It has also been stated that on verification of documents, all those 13 candidates were found suitable and they were issued appointment orders and all of them have joined their duties in August, 2014 itself. There was no scope left for accommodating the petitioner, who was just next to Kanhaiya Sharma - the last selected candidate, securing merit position No.8.