SWAROOP KUMAR ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above-mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical.

(2.) The petitioners herein are seeking appointment to the post of Safai Employees in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25.05.201 11376 posts were advertised for the post of Safai Employees vide advertisement dated 25.05.201 Out of these posts, 601 posts were to be filled by Municipal Council, Bikaner. From these 601 posts, 307 posts were kept for General category and out of these 307 posts, 206 posts were to be filled from General category. It is therefore evident that the total posts were 206 but only 52 candidates (38 Male candidates + 14 Female candidates) in the General category applied. The respondents decided to fill up these posts through lottery based system. While doing so, the names of the candidates belonging to the General category and SC category were put together in the same lot before drawing the lottery. Whereas, total 206 posts were required to be filled by General category and only 52 candidates were available. Hence, all the 52 candidates were entitled to be appointed before transferring the remaining posts in the category of SC.

(3.) No explanation, rational or the object behind joining together both the categories is forthcoming. The very method of joining both the categories together while drawing lottery and thus depriving the petitioners for appointment by putting them up in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis. the Scheduled Caste category (SC) is unfair and in this manner is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory. The same is not supported by Rule, Order of Regulation. It has caused prejudice to the petitioners. The selection of the petitioners which was certain in view of the candidates being less than the number of posts was not only nullified but the petitioners were deprived of their rightful claim under the General category for which the posts were kept separately to be filled from the said category. Adopting the procedure of filing up the posts by a lottery system is one thing and violating the clause in the advertisement vide which a fixed number of posts were kept for each respective category in spite of the availability of the candidates in the said category is another. While filling up the posts through lottery system, the respondents could not have reduced or increased the number of posts to be filled under the respective category.