LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) THE petitioner filed the above writ petition with the following prayers: (a) THE writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and the relevant record may kindly be called for and be perused by this Hon'ble Court, if so pleases; (b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the complete selection procedure which is being followed by the respondent for making direct recruitment on the post of ADJs may kindly be declared as null and void and be quashed and set-aside and it may further be directed to firstly declare the result of the petitioner including all other candidates of written examination and the marks obtained by him in the said examination and also the marks and the percentage of the last candidate who has been called for interview and it may further be directed to call 110 candidates for interview in the ratio which has been notified by it and if the petitioner as per his merit position falls within 110 or within the extended zone, if the vacancies are increased due to compulsory retirement of DJs and ADJs, then he may be called for interview and be considered for appointment on the post of ADJs; (c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the selections and appointments, if made in pursuance of the impugned selection proceedings, same may kindly be quashed and set aside; (d) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, same may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. (e) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner is a practising Advocate from 1978. He suspended his practice from 1980 to 1993 since he was in service. He resumed his practice in the year 1993 and now practising at the Civil Court, Jaipur and also before this Court. A Notification dated, 28. 10. 99 was issued under the signature of the Registrar General whereby applications were invited from the Advocates for filling up 22 vacant posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge, by direct recruitment in RHJS in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1969. According to the petitioner, out of 22 posts advertised, 5 were reserved for women candidates, 4 posts for S. C. candidates, 4 for ST candidates, 3 for OBC category candidates and 11 for General category candidates. According to him, he has fulfilled all the eligibilities as prescribed under the Rules of 1969 and that he belongs to OBC category since he is a Jat by caste. It is his further case that as per the percentage of reservation fixed by the State of Rajasthan, 16% posts were to be filled by SC candidates, 12% by ST and 21% by OBC and in that case, 4 posts should have been reserved for SC, 3 for ST and 4 for OBC candidates, whereas, 3 posts have been shown as reserved for OBC candidates. The petitioner submitted his application in response to the aforesaid Notification and was found fit and therefore, one Admission Card was issued to him for appearing in the written examination. The petitioner appeared in the written test which was held on 6th August 2000 at Jodhpur. Even according to the petitioner, as per the notes mentioned in the admission Card, a written test was to be held for the purpose of scrutiny and short listing with a view of calling the candidates for interview in the ratio of 1 : 5 of the vacancies and marks obtained at the written test shall in no way form any basis for final evaluation in the interview. Thus, according to the petitioner, a total of 110 candidates were to be called for interview. However, a total of 88 candidates were declared as passed in the written test as per Annexure-3. According to the petitioner, the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written examination has not been disclosed, though, he has a right to know the marks awarded to him and even the cut-off marks were to be disclosed. The petitioner submitted a notice for demand of justice through his counsel, which was sent by Registered Post on 20. 11. 2000, though, even after sending the notice for demand of justice nothing was done and the petitioner has come to know that interviews for making direct recruitment on the post of ADJs have already commenced since 15. 1. 2001 and neither the marks obtained by the petitioner have been informed nor the cut-off percentage of marks obtained by the last candidate has been disclosed nor 110 candidates have been called for interview. It is also submitted by the petitioner that 26 persons belonging to RHJS cadre have been compulsorily retired and, therefore, those vacancies are also available and the respondents should have increased the vacancies and the number of candidates to be called for interview should have been accordingly increased on the basis of the existing vacant posts before the interview as the posts of ADJs are to be filled on the basis of interview and the written test has to be held only with a view to make scrutiny and the marks obtained by a candidate are not to be included in the marks obtained in interview and, therefore, written examination is meant only for scrutiny purposes and the real selection procedure starts from selection procedure itself. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition with the prayers extracted above. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner and by the petitioner himself:- (A) That the action of the respondents in not declaring marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination is unjustified, illegal and arbitrary. (B) That the total posts being 22, total 110 candidates should have been short listed after written examination for being called for interview, but only 88 candidates have been short- listed and are to be interviewed which is totally wrong and against the selection procedure as fixed by the respondent itself. Therefore, the entire selection procedure is vitiated. (C) That as per the notification total 22 posts have been advertised out of which 4 posts have been reserved for SC candidates, 4 for ST candidates and 3 for OBC category candidates, whereas as per the percentage of reservation in the State of Rajasthan 16% posts should have been filled by SC, 12% by ST and 21% by the OBC candidates. Therefore, it comes to 4 SC, 3 ST, and 4 OBC and the petitioner belongs to OBC being Jat by caste and has already submitted the caste certificate alongwith his application form. Therefore, the reservation of post for OBC category is not proper. Along with the writ petition Annexures-1 to 4 have been filed.
(3.) ANNEXURE-1 is the Notification issued by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, No. Estt. (RJS)/109/99 dated, 28. 10. 99 inviting applications from the Advocates for filling up 22 vacant posts of Additional District & Sessions Judges by direct recruitment in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. ANNEXURE-2 is the Admission Card. It has been specifically mentioned the Admission Card that the written test is being held for the purpose of scrutiny and short-listing with a view to calling the candidates for interview in the ratio 1 : 5 of the vacancies and marks obtained at the written test shall in no way form any basis for final evaluation in the interview. ANNEXURE-3 is the result of written test held for recruitment on the post of ADJs by direct recruitment published in the newspaper. ANNEXURE-1 is the notice for demand of justice sent by the petitioner on November 20, 2000. This Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner on 21. 1. 2001. When the matter came up before this Bench on 25th January 2001, which was the last date for interview, this Division Bench after hearing the petitioner in person and Shri Prem Asopa, Senior Advocate for the respondent, passed the following order: "heard, Shri Pratap Singh, petitioner in person. We have very little time to go into the merits of the claim raised in this writ petition. Though the Notification advertising the vacancies of RHJS was issued on 28. 10. 99 and a notice for demand was issued on November 20, 2000 demanding justice, the writ petition has been filed only on 22. 1. 2001 with a prayer to declare the entire selection process as null and void and set aside and further to declare the result of the petitioner including all other candidates appeared in the written examination and also the cut off percentage and also the marks and the percentage of the last candidate who has been called for interview and to call 110 candidates for interview in the ratio which has been notified by the Registrar. There are other incidental prayers. The petitioner appeared in the written examination. Since he was not successful in the examination, he was not called for interview. The list of the candidates who were to be called for interview was published in newspapers as early as on 19th of September, 2000. The writ petition has been filed at this belated stage. "though the writ petition itself is liable to be dismissed on the question of latches, we permit the petitioner to provisionally to appear in the interview today at 2. 00 p. m. before the Committee constituted for this purpose. The Registrar is directed to inform the Hon'ble Members of the Committee about this order. However, the result of the petitioner will not be declared until further orders of this Court. Mr. Prem Asopa appears for the respondents and accepts notice. He is at liberty to file reply to the writ petition before the next date of hearing. List this case before this Court when Hon'ble the Chief Justice is in Jaipur. " Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to appear before the interview Committee provisionally at 2 p. m. on 25. 1. 2001. The respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit explaining the specific stand by the respondent. A preliminary objection was raised in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on merits. It is submitted that the Rule-20 (1) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969, gives power to the Court on administrative side to consider the fitness of the candidates for calling them for interview and that the Screening Test and the ratio for calling the candidates is as per the said rule. Shri Asopa invited our attention to Rule 20 (1) of the Rules, which is reproduced here-under: "20. Scrutiny of application and interview: (1) The court shall scrutinise the applications received in accordance with the provisions of Rule 19 and thereafter call for interview only those who, in its opinion, are fit to be called for that purpose. " ;