BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is a candidate belonging to Other Backward Class and has applied for recruitment to the post of Gram Sevak in response to advertisement No. 1/96 to appear in the Recruitment Competitive Examination, 1996. In the said recruitment exercise notwithstanding he having secured 212 out of 300 total marks and was holding number one in merit amongst other candidates belonging to O. B. C. his name was not included in the select list of candidates belonging to O. B. C. Having come to know about this situation, he made a representation on which Additional Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner respondent No. 2 informed the Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide his letter dt. 24. 10. 97 (Ex. 4) stating that this mistake has been committed inadvertently due to not registering the name of the petitioner amongst the candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes. It was also stated in the said letter the petitioner has secured first position amongst the candidates belonging to O. B. C. but by mistake his name has not been included in the select list of category to which he belongs. His appointment was a certainty because of his being number one in the order of merit amongst O. B. C. It was also stated in that letter that as on that date nine posts were still lying vacant in the category of Gram Sevak against which he could be appointed to remedy the apparent wrong. He made a recommendation for considering his case for appointment. However, still receiving no response the present petition was filed by the petitioner on 29. 11. 97. Notice to show cause before admission was issued on 12. 1. 98. In response to notice of admission reply to writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents only on 28. 3. 99, only after issuing a further advertisement dt. 3. 3. 99 for filling 55 posts of Gram Sevak and second stay application was filed on 12. 3. 99. In reply the claim of the petitioner was admitted namely that he was number one in the order of merit amongst the candidates belonging to O. B. C. and his name had not been shown in the select list at its rightful place by mistake of respondents, at which he would have been appointed. Communication Ex. 4 and facts stated therein were also not denied or disputed. However not giving of appointment was justified solely on the ground that since the select list made on 27. 11. 96 in pursuance of Recruitment Competition Examinations 1996 was for duration of one year and said period expired on 27. 11. 97, no relief can be granted to the petitioner now. The petition was admitted on 14. 3. 2000. The Court taking notice of the contention raised and looking to the lapse of time made an enquiry from the respondents on 27. 7. 2000 whether any vacancy is still available in the cadre of Gram Sevak. An oral statement was made by learned counsel for the respondents on 28. 08. 2000 that there is no vacancy for the post of Gram Sevak on which the petitioner could be appointed. The matter was adjourned to 11th Sept. 2000. Today Mr. Choudhary has placed on record written instructions from the Addl. Chief Executive Officer-cum-Zila Parishad, Bikaner dt. 24. 8. 2000 clearly stating that against 150 sanctioned posts only 137 Gram Sevaks have been appointed. Further information which has divulged in the letter is that the matter of appointing 55 Gram Sevak is pending consideration pursuant to Writ Petition No. 66/98. This apparently appears to be a clerical error. The Writ Petition No. 66/98 which is in hand any question about 55 vacancies of Gram Sevaks is not subject matter of this writ petition. However the genesis of disclosing that appointments of 55 posts for Gram Sevak are now under consideration is not far to seek. Alongwith second stay application the copy of advertisement dt. 3. 3. 99 issued by respondents inviting applications for appointment on the estimated 55 vacancies of Gram Sevak has been placed on record. The fact of issuance of this has not been denied and from letter dt. 24. 08. 2000 it is apparent that those posts have still not been filled.
(3.) IRRESISTIBLE conclusion is that as per Annexure-4 dt. 24. 10. 97, which was before the alleged expiry of life of select list and at the time of discovery of the mistake nine vacancies were available. As per the advertisement dt. 3. 3. 99, 55 posts of Gram Sevaks are still to be filled as per letter dt. 24. 08. 2000 placed on record today. In these circumstances the statement made by the learned counsel on 28. 08. 2000 presumably at the instructions of the Instructing Officer was not only misleading but was wholly incorrect and it deserves strong deprecation. Coming to the merit of the present case I am of the opinion that sole contention raised for denying relief to the petitioner is not sustainable. ;