R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel.
(2.) Alongwith counter-affidavit, Annexure-1 has been filed showing allocation of seats to all the reserved categories and to the general category. Out of 20 posts, 4 seats are allocated for Scheduled Castes, 1 for Scheduled Tribes, 5 for backward class a category and 10 for general category. Alongwith counter-affidavit a roster applicable for making appointments has also been filed as Annexure 4. After selection proceedings are finalised the appointments are required to be made strictly according to the roster provided. According to the roster for the posts 1,5,11 and 15 appointments hove to be made from the selected candidates of Scheduled Caste category, whereas the seats No. 3, 7, 13, 17 and 19 posts are to be filled from the selected candidates of backward category. Seats No. 7, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 0 are to be filled from general category. The principles applicable to roster system and method of appointment has been fully explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in case of R. K. Sabbarwal v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1995 SC p. 1371.
(3.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to make appointments strictly according to the roster provided and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above. The interim order dated 20th September, 1994 shall stand modified to this extent. Petitioners shall supply, a copy of the rosted, applicable, the allocation of the posts to different categories out of total twenty posts and a copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, alongwith copy of this order, to the respondent No. 1 within a week for making appointments. In case suitable candidates for any reserve category are not available, a running account shall be maintained for giving due representation to that category in the next selection.;