- (1.) Question of law which arises for determination in these writ petitions is identical and, therefore, these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) For the purpose of appreciating the controversy involved in the writ petitions, I consider it appropriate to set out some facts mentioned in Writ Petition No. 6649/91 Ved Prakash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. For the purpose of recruitment to the posts of Junior Accountant/Tehsil Revenue Accountant under the provisions of Rajasthan Accounts Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 and Rajasthan Tehsil Revenue Accounts Service Rules, 1975, the Rajasthan Public Service commission issued an advertisement on the basis of the requisition sent by the State Government. In all 750 vacancies of Junior Accounts and 60 of Tehsil Revenue Accountants were advertised by the Commission. In each of these two cadres different number of vacancies were reserved for the members of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe, Physically Handicapped and Ministerial Employees. A written examination was held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. On the basis of performance of the candidates, merit list/seniority list was prepared by the Commission. Although there is some controversy regarding the number of candidates selected, from the reply of Respondent R.P.S.C. it transpires that in all 380 candidates belonging to General Category, 34 Scheduled Caste candidates, 8 Scheduled Tribe candidates, 21 Physically Handicapped candidates and 93 Ministerial Employees were selected in the first instance. Their names were sent by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to the Government which ultimately appointed them. Admittedly none of the petitioners figure in the merit list on the basis of which these persons have been appointed from the General \Category. The Government of Rajasthan had issued a Circular dated 16.8.89 by which an implied embargo on the carry forward rule was imposed. Validity of this circular was examined by a Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2553/90 Richpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan. By its decision dated 14.9.90 the learned Single Judge declared the Circular of the Government to be ultravires of the rules and, therefore, the Court struck it down. The decision of the Single Bench was upheld by the Division Bench which dismissed the appeal and the decision of the Division Bench has became final. On the basis of the decision of the High Court striking down the Circular dated 16.8.89, a number of candidates who appeared in the examination for recruitment on the post of Junior Accountant approached this Court. The court allowed several writ petitions and gave directions to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to forward the names of the candidates in accordance with their merit to the Government for appointment against the vacancies which remained unfilled on account of non availability of the candidates of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and which ought to have been treated as general category vacancies. In all 90 candidates were given appointment in accordance with their merit. In the meantime, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had sent a reserved list of 113 candidates and the Government appointed these 113 candidates from amongst the general category. On the basis of the decision of the High Court (Principal Seat at Jodhpur) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4201/90 R.N. Vyas, v. R.P.S.C. & Ors., decided on 23.1.91. 14 Ministerial Employees were appointed as Junior Accountants. Thus, on the basis of the figures furnished by the R.P.S.C. it can be said that in all 587 candidates belonging to General Category, 34 belonging to Scheduled Caste, 8 belonging to Scheduled Tribe, 21 Physically Handicapped and 107 Ministerial Employees have been appointed as Junior Accountants on the basis of the examination held in pursuance to advertisement of 1988.
(3.) All the petitioners have claimed that although they have been selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for appointment as Junior Accounts, on account of the fact that the State Government and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission have acted in violation of the provisions of 1963 Rules, they have been denied appointment. Thus, their legal rights to be appointed in the Rajasthan Accounts Subordinate Service has been infringed. Further case of the petitioners is that with the above object of clearing the back log of the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 7.9.89 for making recruitment on the post of Junior Accountants. All the vacancies advertised were exclusively reserved for the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. On the basis of this advertisement a large number of SC/ST candidates have been appointed as Junior Accountants. While issuing the advertisement the respondents have completely given a go-bye to the rights of General Category candidates for selection against these vacancies. More than 100 vacancies remained unfilled. These over 100 vacancies were filled by the candidates who were declared successful in the examination held in pursuance to advertisement issued in 1988.;