LAKSHMANAN, C. J. - (1.) THE petitioner belongs to the S. T. category and had applied for RHJS by direct recruitment. A Notification dated 28. 10. 99 was issued under the signatures of the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, whereby applications were invited from Advocates for filling up 22 vacancies in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service in accordance with the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules of 1969. Out of 22 vacancies advertised, 5 vacancies were reserved for the women candidates in all categories, 4 posts for S. ,c. , 4 posts for S. T. , 3 posts for OBC and 11 posts for general category candidates. Out of the 4 vacancies, in ST category, one post was reserved for woman candidate. On 6. 8. 2000, the screening test for all categories was held and result of the said screening test was declared on 19. 9. 2000. In the said screening test 88 candidates were declared passed. Since against the three vacancies of ST (M) category, only 6 candidates were available, therefore, it was decided to call all the 6 candidates including the petitioner irrespective of their performance in the screening test. Before the commencement of the interviews, the Interview Committee constituted for selection had resolved that no general category candidate obtaining less than 50% marks should be taken to be suitable for appointment to RHJS. So far as the candidates belonging to reserved category were concerned, it was scaled down by 10% i. e. upto 40% marks obtained at the interview. It was also resolved by the Interview Committee that the total marks of the interview shall be 400 and each of the member of the Committee would give marks out of 100. THE interviews were held from 15. 1. 2001 to 25. 1. 2001. THE petitioner was interviewed on 22. 1. 2001.
(2.) THE Hon'ble Judges Committee have recommended 12 candidates for OBC (for two vacancies for men and one vacancy for woman) for the female candidates in OBC category, altogether 6 female candidates appeared and the Committee had recommended 6 candidates for the interview. As far the SC, though, 4 posts were reserved for this category out of which 1 is reserved for female and 3 for male candidates. 5 male candidates had appeared and only one female candidate had appeared altogether in the test. THErefore, all the 5 male candidates and 1 female candidate were recommended for interview. As far as the Scheduled Tribe candidates are concerned, four posts were reserved, out of which one is reserved for female candidate. However only six male candidates had appeared and no female candidate had appeared in the test and therefore, all the six persons were recommended for the interview. In so far as general category is concerned, there are 11 posts, out of which 2 posts are reserved for female candidates. Altogether, 288 candidates appeared in the male category and 45 candidates should be recommended for the interview. But, some of the candidates have secured equal marks, the Committee instead of recommending 45 candidates, have recommended 46 candidates for the interview. So far as the female candidates are concerned, against 2 posts, 47 candidates had appeared and the Committee had recommended 10 candidates, but in view of the fact that some candidates have secured equal marks in the merit list, the Committee had recommended 12 women candidates for the interview. Thus, it is clearly seen that the respondent has adopted the reasonable and fair ratio of 1 : 5, but in the category of S. C. (men)-3 vacancies, S. C. (women)-1 vacancy, S. T. (men)-3 vacancies and ST (women)-1 vacancy, the requisite number of candidates were not available in the ratio which has resulted in calling of lesser number of candidates than the ratio. As regards the OBC category, in all there were 3 posts, 2 for men and 1 for woman. Against 2 posts for men 12 candidates were called as per the marks obtained in the screening test. As already noticed, the Interview Committee constituted for selection of candidates had resolved that no general category candidate obtaining less than 50% marks at the interview should be taken to be suitable for appointment to RHJS. So far as the candidates belonging to the reserved categories, it was decided to scale down the criteria by 10% i. e. upto 40% of the marks obtained at the interview. Before the commencement of the interviews, the Interview Committee resolved that the total marks for the interview shall be 400 and each member of the Committee would give marks out of 100. Accordingly, marking was done individually and total marks obtained by a candidate were tabulated and signed and kept in sealed cover pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. Since 15 candidates from the General, OBC and SC category candidates were found suitable for recommending for the post of RHJS, the names were recommended by the Interview Committee. The Committee did not find any candidate suitable for being recommended for appointment against the four vacancies reserved for ST (General) and ST (Women) candidates and against the one vacancy reserved for SC (women), the Committee found one candidate suitable for recommendation and her name has been included in the list of candidates recommended. The Committee also did not find any other candidate in the SC category against the three remaining vacancies in that category for recommendation. Since the Committee did not find any other candidate suitable for recommendation for appointment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, no reserved list is prepared and the remaining seven vacancies in the SC and ST category are recommended to be carried forward to the next recruitment. Accordingly, a notification No. Estt. (RJS) 12/2001, dated, 13th Feb. , 2001, calling applications from the Advocates belonging to the SC/st category for filling 7 reserved unfilled vacant posts of Additional District & Sessions Judges by direct recruitment in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969, was also issued and published in the Hindustan Times dated, February 16, 2001 and in other newspapers. It is also pertinent to notice that the number of vacancies of reserved category have been worked out as per the roster register and the Government Circular dated 20. 11. 97, the vacancies in ST category were determined four in number as per the roster register and the Government Circular dated, 20. 11. 1997. As far as the reservation for the OBC is concerned, the same was rightly determined as three out of which two were for men and one was for women as per the roster register maintained by the respondent and the Government Circular dated 20. 11. 1997. The recommendations of the Interview Committee were placed before the Hon'ble Full Court in Feb. , 2001 and the recommendation of the Interview Committee was accepted and on 13. 2. 2001, the unfilled 7 posts of reserved category were re- advertised. Out of which 3 posts are for the SC category and 4 posts for ST category. Out of 4 posts of ST, 1 post is for ST (woman) candidate. In the instant case, the petitioner who belongs to Meena community which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (ST) Order, 1959, appeared for the written examination and qualified in the written test, was interviewed by the Interview Committee on 22. 1. 2001. The following are his submissions: (a) Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India provides for job reservation to the backward classes and especially to the SC and ST and that the provisions regarding reservation roster are not being implemented in letter and spirit frustrating the very object behind them. (b) The provisions regarding relaxation, reservation and concession to the candidates of SC and ST had been rightly interpreted and applied in true letter and spirit and the petitioner must have been selected for the appointment to the post of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, but unfortunately this was not done. (c) The petitioner has now crossed the age of 45 years in terms of the advertisement and, therefore, he cannot apply for the post of Addl. District & Sessions Judge again. (d) The non-selection of the petitioner is illegal, unfair and violative of Article 14 and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. Though, the written examination was conducted, but no mark-sheet was issued to the candidates. (e) The petitioner had been working as Asstt. Public Prosecutor and Asstt. Director of Prosecution and conducting various criminal cases including the Sessions Cases, but was not selected against the reserved post in accordance with the constitutional mandate of proportionate reservation. (f) Since the suitable candidates in the category are not available in the required number for filling the vacant posts of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates on the basis of minimum standard, these vacant posts can be filled by giving further relaxation in the minimum standard.
(3.) RAISING the above contentions, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers: (1) By appropriate order or direction the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner as on one of the post of Addl. District & Sessions Judge reserved for ST advertised in advertisement Annex. 2. (2) In case, if the petitioner is not given appointment on the post of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, then he may be given age relaxation which allowed to apply for post of Addl. District & Sessions Judges advertised through Annex. 5. Alongwith the writ petition, the petitioner had annexed caste certificate and the notifications etc. We have perused the averments made in the writ petition and considered the submissions made and decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel has prayed for appointment of the petitioner to one of the posts of Additional District & Sessions Judge reserved for ST in pursuance to the Advertisement, Annexure-2 and alternatively prayed that in case the said appointment is not given to him, then he may be given age relaxation for the post of Addl. District & Sessions Judges advertised on 13. 2. 2001 (Annex. 5 ). The above mentioned relief has been claimed on the ground that the petitioner is eligible to be considered as a candidate of ST category available for appointment to the vacancies reserved for ST category without making any specific averments regarding the suitability for the said post. We are unable to countenance the said submission. It is settled law that it is not the function of the writ court to issue any direction for appointment to a particular post and that the direction can be limited only to the extent that if the petitioner is found to be suitable, then he can be considered for appointment. In the instant case, the petitioner has not secured the minimum qualifying marks of 40% fixed for reserved category candidates, which was 10% less than the cut off marks of 50% fixed for the general category candidate. The marks for the reserved category candidates has been scaled down keeping in view the efficiency in the administration of justice, which is in consonance with Article 335 of the Constitution of India. Further lowering down of marks would be, in our opinion, contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India. ;