PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE present special appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 13. 3. 2001 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. THE learned Single Judge was of the opinion that dispensing with the qualifications and experience as laid down, for direct recruitment, is not possible and such permission cannot be granted. THE learned Judge was also of the opinion that the writ petition has been filed after gross delay.
(2.) ASSAILING the judgment of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the qualifications have been laid down by the Agriculture Department and not be the State Government. Proviso to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 (referred to herein- after as `the Rules') only provides that the authorities can decide only about the percentage of recruitment by each method and, thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the notification Annx. which prescribes the qualification is beyond the competence of the Agriculture Department and, therefore, it should be struck down. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that even if it is assumed that the Agriculture Department has the power then there would be an anomaly in the Notification whereby in Column No. 3 it has been provided that there would be 50% direct recruitment and 50% by promotion but in remarks column it has been provided that after promoting all the six Marketing Supervisors, the post should be 100% filled in by direct recruitment and this is in contravention to Column No. 3 and 4 provided in the Notification. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that the promotional avenues of the appellant have been sealed as the recruitment has been made to this post 100% by direct recruitment. The appellant has been discriminated against those six persons who have been promoted to the post of Marketing Supervisors and the petitioner claims that he was senior to few who have been held entitled to promotion by this Notification. In the writ petition, the State has filed a reply and has contended that by virtue of Rule 12 of the Rules there is a power vested in the concerned appointing authority to prescribe the qualifications. In the instant case the appointing authority has prescribed the qualifications by issuing the notification and therefore, the case of the appellant that the department had no power to prescribe the qualification is incorrect. Rule 12 of the Rules is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- "12. Academic qualifications - A candidate for direct recruitment must possess a good working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script, and such other qualifications as may be prescribed by the Appointing Authority with the approval of Government. If the post is within the purview of the Public Service Commission, it will also be consulted. Where the minimum qualification required for a post is Matriculation and the recruitment is not to be made by a competitive examination, a test in Hindi of Matriculation standard may be prescribed in the case of the candidates who did not pass their High School or equivalent examination in Hindi. The candidate shall have to pass this test during his/her period of probation. " It has also been averred by the respondent State in its reply that proviso to Rule 7 quoted and relied on by the appellant clearly specifies that the percentage of recruitment can be fixed up after consultation with the department. If it has been decided that 100% direct recruitment is to be made to the post, then no discrimination can be seen in the rule, as contained in the notification. It has been averred by the State that these six persons regarding which a grievance has been made have not been made parties to the writ petition. They were absorbed way back, because they were appointed in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board and subsequently absorbed in the Directorate of Agriculture Marketing Department. They have not been initially appointed/posted in any Krishi Upaj Mandi Samities and as and when they were sent to Directorate they were absorbed. No grievance was raised by any person. That being the position a provision was to be made and was, thus, made by the notification and on this count no discrimination can be alleged by the appellant.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also carefully considered the case of the appellant and examined the record. The case of the appellant regarding relaxation of the qualification for his promotion is not based on sound reasoning. There is no reason by virtue of which it can be said that this Court can issue a mandamus to relax the qualifications. Thus, the prayer of relaxation in the qualifications by issuing a writ of mandamus is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. Rule 12 of the Rules quoted hereinabove makes a provision about fixing up of the qualifications by the appointing authority with the approval of the Government. In the instant case, the notification has been issued by the Government at the instance of the appointing authority. Therefore, the notification is clearly in accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules. Proviso to Rule 7 of the Rules has no application in fixing up of the qualification. Learned counsel for the appellant has not looked into the Rules and has, therefore, misplaced his emphasis on proviso to Rule 7. Thus, it cannot be said that the notification was beyond the competence of the State Government. ;