NARESH CHANDRA SHUKLA Vs. R P S C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions of law which arise for determination of this Court in the instant writ petition are as indicated herein below:

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy at issue between the parties are that on 9.1.1986, 25 posts of District Agriculture Officer were advertised by the Commission for filing up the same in the Agriculture Department. The petitioner who was eligible for being considered for appointment on the post of District Agriculture Officer, applied for the said post to the Commission. It is further the case of the petitioner that as on 10.8.1986 the screening Test was held from amongst the eligible candidates who had applied for the above post. The petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 22.10.1986 (Exh. 1). The result was published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 19.10.1986 and was also affixed on the notice board of the Commission as on 19.11.1986, the name of the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 1 in the reserve list and he was accordingly intimated in this regard vide letter dated 9.1.1987 (Exh.2). It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on 26.12.1986 a list of 25 selected candidates was sent by the Commission to the State Government and the eligible candidates were appointed in terms of the order dated 11.2.1987 (Exh.3). The last date for joining was intimated to the candidates by the commission as 28.3.1987. Since the name of the petitioner did not figure in the aforesaid list of selected candidates, the petitioner submitted two representations to the Director Agriculture Department vide Exh. 4 and 5 in view of the fact that certain selected candidates had not joined nor they had applied for extension and since the last date which was prescribed for joining had already lapsed and consequently the reserve list may be requisitioned from the Commission and the petitioner who was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the reserve list be appointed.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the aforesaid provisions of Rule 22 of Rules has vehemently contended at the bar that the above provision clearly indicates that the Commission was under a statutory obligation to recommend the names of the selected candidates from the reserve list in view of non -joining of some candidates who though recommended had not joined. Consequently the petitioner being at Sr. No. 1 in the reserve list should have been called for and be given appointment on the post of District Agriculture Officer. His further contention is that the very object of keeping the select list alive for a period of 6 months from the date of its preparation or publication was that in the event of non -joining of the selected candidates, the vacant post should be filled up from the reserve list but, the petitioner's name was not recommended for joining the duties on the above post since his name was obviously sent after the expiry of the validity period of selected list and hence not considered for appointment. His further contention is that on proper appreciation and construction of aforesaid Rule, the position which emerges is that the period of 6 months should commence with effect from the date on which the original list was forwarded by the Commission to the State Government for appointment of selected candidates duly recommended by the Commission for their appointment and the point involved for consideration of this Court is as to whether the day on which the main list was issued is to be excluded from the validity period of 6 months of the select list of the recommended candidates or not for computing the limitation ? In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Article 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1963') which provides, as under: