- (1.) All these writ petitions, particulars of which are given in the Schedule 'A' attached with this order, raise a similar question of law, hence they are decided by a common order. form, "Suchana Patrika" was also issued, in which it was mentioned that candidates were to mention name of a district, in which they would desire to serve. The result of the examination was declared by the RPSC around April 17, 1989 and it made recommendations to the Government for appointment in the month of July, 1989. However, the mark-sheets were supplied in the month of January, 1990. The petitioner secured 59.5% marks (Anx. 1). The option given by the petitioner was for Kota. It is further submitted that Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for brevity,'the Rules, 1957') lays down that the candidate shall be required to state in the application form the names of two Districts or Departments, in which he desires to serve. It further provides that, in case of non-availability of vacancies in the Districts mentioned in the application, the applicant may be posted in any of the Districts of the State. It is pointed out that this Rule was not followed, since only choice of one district was taken from the applicants.
(2.) A. It is submitted that several writ petitions were filed by various candidates challenging that the choice of district was wrongly taken from the applicants. It is further submitted that a number of posts in several districts were increased immensely to the detriment of the applicants. For example, in Bikaner district, the posts were increased from 6 to 408; in Jaipur district, the posts were increased from 41 to 155. So far as the Subordinate Offices are concerned, the posts were increased to 1882. Therefore, the candidates, who had given option for Bikaner district, were selected by obtaining 37.5% marks, whereas this applicant and hundreds of other applicants, who obtained 59.5% marks or more than 37.5% marks were not given appointments. The first bunch of writ petitions was decided by the learned Single Judge in the decision of Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 1 RentLR 45. These writ petitions were allowed and it was directed that since all the petitioners who had filed writ petitions, had given second choice for Bikaner district, be considered to be given appointments on the 140 posts still lying unfilled, in order of merit, provided none of them has secured less than 38% marks. Thereafter, large number of applicants filed fresh writ petitions, which were heard and decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sunita Gupta etc. V. State of Raj. & RPSC, 1990 1 RentLR 445, in which, while allowing the writ petitions, a direction was issued for giving appointments to all those candidates, who have secured 37.5% or more marks, irrespective of the fact whether they have filed writ petitions or not. Against this decision, the State preferred D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 107/91 (State and another V. Sunita Gupta which is pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. In this Special Appeal, the State informed the Court that 906 posts out of 1882 were lying unfilled since some of the candidates did not join on these post. The Division Bench, therefore, directed on April 10, 1991 that the Government should supply a statement of district-wise and department-wise vacancies to the RPSC and, thereafter the RPSC should invite options from the candidates other than those who have already been given appointment as LDCs.for one more district and after receiving the options, it should prepare a fresh list for those 906 vacancies and forward the same to the Government for making appointments as per list. It is submitted that out of these 906 posts, 337 posts are still lying unfilled, as those given appoi ntments have not joined.
(3.) It is submitted that the candidates, who secured as less as 37.5% marks in Bikaner district, ware given appointments, whereas hundreds of candidates, who Were more meritorious and secured as high percentage as 67% marks in Jhunjhunu district like petitioner who secured 59.5% marks, could not get appointments, since Rules 19, 21 and 24 of the Ruls 1957 are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as discrimination has been made on the basis of District-wise selection, ignoring the merits of the petitioners. The list of successful candidates is not prepared on the basis of merit of State-wise, but is prepared on the basis of each district, which results in gross discrmination and meritorious candidates are denied appointments, while those, having no comparative merit, are given appointments. It is pointed out that alongwith the reply filed by the State, Anx. R/1 has been filed, in which a notification dated June 30, 1988, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms has been published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated August 11, 1988. By this notification, sub-rule (1) of Rule 24 of the Rules, 1957 have been amended, which shows that the combined merit list, which was otherwise also prepared for the State as a whole, has been done away with and replaced by preparation of district-wise merit list.;