Hon'ble LODHA, J. - (1.) -These writ petitions involving common questions of law and facts were heard together for final disposal at the admission stage, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioners belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBC) are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the OBC candidates on the post of Sub Inspector under the provisions of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (in short "the Rules of 1989") in the general/open category though they have secured more marks than the last candidate selected in general category, solely on the ground that they have availed the benefit of relaxation in upper age limit extended to the candidates belonging to OBC category under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989 and therefore, they are not entitled to compete with the genera] category candidates against the unreserved seats. The factual matrix of the case lies in narrow compass. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement dated 9.4.07 for conducting the combined competitive examination, 2007 for selection to the post of Sub Inspector Police (AP); Platoon Commander (Sub Inspector RAC) and Sub Inspector Police (MBC). The particulars of the 244 posts advertised and category wise allocation thereof are as under:- JUDGEMENT_846_RAJLW1_2011Image1.jpg The petitioners possessing requisite qualification applied for selection to the posts advertised in the OBC category, while availing the benefit of relaxation in age provided for OBC Male candidates under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989 The examination for selection to the posts were conducted in three phases. In the first phase, the candidates were required to appear in the written examinations. The persons declared successful in the written examinations were subjected to physical efficiency test and finally the persons qualifying the physical efficiency tesf were invited for personality and viva voce examinations. The petitioners qualified the written examinations and also passed the physical efficiency test and therefore, they were called for personality and viva voce examinations. After completion of the process of selection, the result was declared by the RPSC on 26.3.09. According to the placement of the petitioners in the merit list declared, they were entitled to be appointed on the post, however, they were not called for medical examination. On enquiry being made, the petitioners came to know that OBC Male candidates wno were at Sr. Nos. 1, 3, 4 to 9, 12 to 17, 21, 23, 27, 32, 33, 37, 38, 40, 42,44, 45, 51 to 54, 57 to 59, 61, 65, 67 and 69 in the common merit list and much higher in the merit than the other candidates in general category have been placed in the OBC category and thus, 36 seats of OBC candidates were filled from among those candidates who were entitled to be appointed in the general category according to their placement in the merit list. It was further revealed that the respondent RPSC had taken a decision not to include candidates belonging to OBC category in the general category though they have secured higher merits in the general/open category list, for the reason that they had availed the benefit of age relaxation meant for OBC Male candidates under the Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989. Hence, these writ petitions.
(3.) A reply to the show cause notice has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (RPSC and the State) in Mangla Ram's case (S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 8023/09) stating that the candidates belonging to OBC category who have not taken the advantage of age relaxation and are within the age limit i.e. 25 years prescribed for general category candidates and upto 28 years after three years age relaxation available to government servants, are entitled to be appointed according to their own merit against the unreserved posts and therefore, they have been selected and recommended for appointment to the posts belonging to the general category. It is stated that the persons who have availed the age relaxation available to the OBC category under the Rules of 1989 have been put in the list of OBC category though, they stand higher in the merit list of general/open category. Thus, precisely the stand of the respondents is that the persons who have availed the benefit of relaxation of age and applied for appointment to the post in the OBC category are entitled to be appointed against the posts reserved for their own category and cannot be permitted to compete with the candidates belonging to the general/open category for which they were ineligible to compete on account of the age bar. In other words, according to the respondents the candidates belonging to the reserved category who have not entered into the competitive examinations with the same eligibility as prescribed for general/open category are not entitled to be included in the merit list of the candidates belonging to general/open category. However, it is not disputed that if the successful candidates belonging to OBC category who have not been included in the general/open merit list despite their securing higher merits, on account of availing the benefit of age relaxation are included in the general/open merit list then, all the petitioners herein shall be entitled to be appointed on the post of Sub Inspector against the posts belonging to OBC category, on account of seats being vacated in OBC category. An application (M.A. No. 39172/09) was preferred in Mangla Ram's case (writ petition No. 8023/09) on behalf of Shri Sunil Sharma & 19 other candidates selected for appointment on the posts in general category for impleading them as party respondents in the writ petition which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 10.11.09 and the applicants were impleaded as party respondents No. 5 to 24 in the matter. ;