INDER SEN ISRANI,J. - (1.) IN all the above -mentioned writ petitions, common questions of law have been raised, therefore, all the petitions are decided by single order. It is claimed by the petitioners that the Combined Competitive Examinations for Lower Division Clerks, for which advertisement was issued on July 23,1987 (Ex.1) were not held in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for brevity, 'Rules, 1957') and option of giving two Districts for appointment was not given, therefore, meritorious Candidates could not get appointment. It has been prayed that the selection made and appointments given be, therefore, quashed and set aside. Alternatively, out of the remaining vacancies in Bikaner district, the petitioners be given appointment as lower Division Clerks.
(2.) THE Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for brevity, 'RPSC') issued an advertisement dated July 23, 1986, inviting applications for Lower Division elerks combined Competitive Examination for filling up the vacancies in Subordinate offices, Rajasthan Secretariat and RPSC in accordance with the procedure Laid down in Rules 19,20 &21 of the Rules, 1957. There were, in all 888 vacancies in Subordinate offices. Exhibit Number, as given in petition No. 299/90 are given in this order; although in other petitions also, more or less, similar documents have been filed. A printed Information Pamphlet (E.2) was also supplied by RPSC along with application form obtained by the petitioners for the said examination. In E.2 number of vacancies in subordinate offices has been shown District -wise. It has also been shown that the candidate has to mention one District, in which he desires to serve, as is mentioned in clause 3 (ga) on page 3 and clause 8(BA) on page 4 of Ex.2. Bach of the petitioners mentioned name of one District for appointment in Subordinate offices in Column 10 of the application. The petitioners appeared in the typing test conducted in the months of December 1987 and October, 1988. The result of the aforesaid examination was declared by RPSC on April 17, 1989 and recommendations were sent to respondent No. 1 in July, 1989, but the marks sheet (E.5) of the said examination was sent to the petitioners around December, 1989. All the petitioners, except one in petition No. 927/90, have secured 45.5 % marks to 66.5 % marks However, in Bikaner District, appointment were given to candidates, who even secured 38% marks. Thus, petitioners, who have secured much better marks, have not been able to get appointment, since they did not give choice of Bikaner District for appointment. It is submitted by Mr. B.L.Samdaria, MR. S.K.Paul, Mr. Prahlad Singh and Mr. Ashok gaur, learned Counsel that the selections made by RPSC are liable to be aside, as the same have not been done in accordance with the Rules, 1957. Further, it is submitted that the vacancies in Bikaner District were increased from 6 to 408, in Jaipur District from 41 to 156 and in Ajmer District from 4 to 36, on account of which the petitioners who were more meritorious. could not get choice of proper District, since the number of vacancies originally given in the advertisement was quite less as shown above. In Para 17 of the Petition No. 299/90, the comparative list of seats originally advertised and subsequently raised is given. It is also pointed out that as required by Rule 21, the RPSC should have asked the candidates to mention names of two Districts in order of preference, in which they wanted to be appointed. However in contravention of this mandatory rule, the candidates were asked to give name of only one District, in which they desired to get appointment. It is submitted that on account of this, the candidates could not give choice of second District, due to..of which, the less; though petitioners have obtained higher marks than several of the appointed persons. It is further contend that when the vacancies were enormously in creased in Bikaner, Jaipur, Ajmer and other District from 888 to 1882, it was necessary for the RPSC to have issued a corrigendum and invite from the candidates fresh options for two Districts, which has not been done. It is pointed out that the Rules of 1957 are Statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and the RPSC is legally bound to work within framework of the said Rules. It is also pointed out that is the whole selection is not set aside for any reason, in the alternate, the petitioners, who are more meritorious, should be given appointment in 140 vacancies, still lying vacant in Bikaner District, where candidates, who have secured only 38% marks, have been given appointment.
(3.) IT is submitted by Mr.M.I.Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for Respondent No. 2, and Mr.Ashok Parihar, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for Respondent No. 1 that in the advertisement (Ex.1) itself, it is mentioned that the posts can be increased or decreased. Therefore, it was not necessary for the RPSC to issue any corrigendum regarding increase of the posts in various Districts. It is also submitted that candidates were asked in the said advertisement to verify the Rules, therefore, it was for the candidates themselves to have verified and pointed out any discrepancy in the advertisement were examination was held and not when the results were announced. Now, since these petitioners have not been given appointments, they have raised these questions. It is contended that Rule 21 of the Rules, 1957 was amended on August 18,1987 with retrospective effect from February 3,1986 and there after, the proviso to the same became redundant. Hence, it was not necessary for RPSC to have given choice of two Districts, since the appointment was to be made District -wise, the candidates were asked to given choice of one District. The examination was conducted District -wise, so, the merit list was also prepared District -wise and the petitioners, who were less meritorious, so far as the District in which they opted to be appointed than those who have been given appointment, question of giving them appointment did not arise. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be considered for Bikaner District. It is also contended that merely because there is alight deviation of non -application of redundant proviso to Rule 21 of the Rules 1957 the same should not be held to be fatal, sofar as the whole selection is concerned. 4A. For the purposes of these petitions, Rules 19, 20, 21 and 24 of Rules, 1957 are relevant. Rule 19, as it existed prior to February 3, 1986,was substituted by amendment dated February 3, 1986. Previously, the examinations for the post of Lower Division Clerks in Subordinate Offices were to be held zone -wise, but as per the substituted Rule 19, the same were to be held District -wise by the Commission. Before the deviation in the advertisement from Rule 21 of Rules 1957 is considered, it will be desirable to extract the same to know exactly the requirement of this Rule, in accordance with which, the RPSC was to conduct the Competitive Examination. Rule 21 reads as under: Rules 21, Existing as on 23.7.86, the date Rule 21 as amended on 18.8.87 made of issue of Advertisement Ex.1. effective retrospectively from 3.2.86 i.e. before the date of issue of Advertisement Ex.1. 1. Inviting of Applications: Rule 21 (AMENDED) The applications to sit at the examination In the said Rules: shall be invited by the Commission by For the Existing Rule 21, the following advertising the posts in such manners as shall be substituted and shall always be they may deem fit and shall be made in deemed to have been substituted with such form as they may approve and (each effect from 3.2.86, namely - candidate shall be required to state in his '21. Inviting of Applications - application form the name of 3 Districts or The applications to sit in the examina - Departments in which he desires to serve): tion either competition or qualifying Provided further that in case of compe - examination for L.D.C. and Stenogra titive examination for the post of Lower Stengoraphers shall be invited by the Division Clerks, candidates shall be requi - Commission by advertising the posts in red to apply zone -wise as referred to in such manner, as they may deem fit, and Rule 19 and each candidate, in his applica - shall be made in such form as they may tion shall mention the names of two approve: Districts in the order of preference in which he wants his appointment Provided that in case of competitive examination appointments, for the post of LDC candidate shall be required application form the name of 2 Districts or Departments in which he desire to serve. But in case of non -availability of vacancies to the Districts of his desire he may be posted in any of the Distt. of the State. (Published) In Raj. Gaz. Ex.Crdi.4 (Raj.) Dt. 20.8.87 Page 64). ;