G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THESE special appeals have been filed against the order dated August 1, 1990 of the learned Single Judge, by which 58 writ petitions have been decided.
(2.) LEARNED Single Judge has given a direction that against 140 seats of Lower Division Clerks, which remained unfilled in Bikaner District shall be filled by considering the candidature of the petitioners who have given their second choice for option in Bikaner District. It has also been observed that they shall be given appropriate seniority at appropriate place in accordance with their merit. The respondents has filed writ petitions before the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the selection made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Commission') for appointment to the post of L.D.C. on the basis of combind competetive examination held by the Commission in pursuance to the Advertisement dated July 23, 1986. In the petitions, it was alleged that the Commission had invited applications for 888 posts of L.D.Cs. to be filled in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957. In addition to this, 67 posts of L.D.Cs. for Rajasthan Public Service Commission were also advertised. District wise distribution of seats were given in the Information Pamphlet, which was furnished to the candidates together with the printed copy of Syllabus, along with the application from. According to this pamphlet the candidates applying for recruitment to the post of L.D.C. in subordinate offices had to mention the name of one district in which he wanted appointment. The Commission conducted examination sometimes in the year 1987 and also in the year 1988. The result of the examination was announced on 17.4.1989. The names of selected candidates were forwarded by the Commission in July 1989 to the State Government for the purpose of making appointments. It was stated in the petitions that a large number of appointments had been made in favour of the candidates who have secured much lower percentage of marks than the petitioners in the writ petitions. This had happened because option was given to the candidates to chose only one district for the purpose of appointment. As per the statements contained in the petitions, number of posts were increased in different districts. In case of Bikaner district, initially 6 posts were advertised, but subsequently, the number was raised to 408 and 76 candidates who had secured just 30% marks i.e. pass -marks had been given appointments in Bikaner district. The Commission had recommended the names of 1700 candidates. For Bikaner district 268 names against the vacancies of 408 posts were recommended to the Government for subordinate offices. The petitioners submitted that as per the scheme of Rules 19, 20, 21 and 24 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 the candidates were entitled to be given option for more than one district for the purpose of appointment and the Commission had committed a serious error in restricting the choice of the candidates to only one district.
(3.) THE Commission who was respondent No. 2 in the writ petitions, filed a reply. In the reply it was asserted that in all 98537 applications were received in pursuance of the Advertisement dated July 23, 1986. It was also stated that number of posts in different districts had been increased after issuance of advertisement. It was within the competence of the State Government to increase or reduce the number of posts and the Commission was bound to make selection on the basis of final number of posts given by the Government. It has also been made clear in the pamphlet given to the candidates that number of posts can be increased or decreased at any time and it was not necessary to issue any corrizendum. According to the respondents, rule 21 of 1957 Rules had become redundant after the amendment dated 3.2.1976.;