- (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of the various writ petitions as per Schedule 'a', since a common question of law is involved in all these writ petitions.
(2.) IN these writ petitions the appointments through lottery system have been challenged. The petitioners were appointed as sweeper/scavenger on daily wage basis by the Municipal Council, Jaipur. As per the order dated 27-7-1990 100 posts on permanent basis were to be filled in and the information was posted on the notice board of all the four zones of Municipal Council, Jaipur. The last date for the submission of the application was 10. 08. 1990 and the lottery was to be drawn on August 17, 1990. The services of Class IV employees are governed by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rule, 1964. According to the said rule no educational qualification is prescribed for the appointment. Akhil Bhartiya Safai Mazdoor Congress Committee, Jaipur Bench Jaipur, which is a recognised union entered into the settlement for making appointments of 100 posts in the Municipal Council by lottery system on 19. 07. 1990 and an agreement was entered into between the parties. It has been submitted by the respondents that the petitioners have also applied for the appointment on the post of sweeper/scavenger and took chance and being unsuccessful challenged the mode of selection by lottery and have also submitted that the reservation of 50% for the women is illegal. The arguments from both the sides have been heard. It has been stated by the learned Advocate General that there was a strike by the employees of the Municipality and it was Akhil Bhartiya Safai Mazdcor Congress Comm-ittee, Jaipur Branch which has negotiated in the matter and helped the Municipality in calling off the said strike and as a result of such co-operation the agreement was entered into by the said Akhil Bhartiya Safai Mazdoor Congress on 19th July 1990. It was on account of this agreement that the sufficient publicity for the posts was given by affixing the information on the notice board of all the four zones of Chandpole, Civil Lines, Hawa Mahal and Moti Doongri and accordingly 4853 applications were received out of which 2225 were of male candidates and 2628 were of the female candidates. It has also been submitted that similar advertisement was issued in the year 1992 for 150 posts where 5435 applications were received of which 2985 were female candidates and 2500 were male candidates. All the applications were scrutinised and those persons who were not found fit by the Committee their applications were rejected and for the rest of the persons since no minimum qualification was required and all those persons were eligible, it was only to avoid any arbitrariness in the mode of selection that the system of lottery was prefeired and since from the number of applications it would be evident that the female candidates who have applied for the posts were more than 50% and if their number is restricted to 50% it cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The first point which is to be decided is whether the system of filling up the posts by the lottery system is a proper system or not. Normally, for providing the job where educational qualification is required, the appointment cannot be made by a lottery system but where no minimum qualification is required at all and all uneducated persons are eligible for the appointment on a post and all the candidates fulfill the requirement of the eligibility which has been checked by a committee then the appointment in such a case can only be properly made by lottery system more particularly when the number of the persons is so high. It has not been alleged that there was any mistake in the procedure of selection by lottery. The only submission is that the system of selection by lottery is not legal. I have considered about the system of selection by the lottery. In the circumstances mentioned above it is perfectly legal and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise on the part of the respondents or unreasonable in any manner or affected the rights of the petitioners when they themselves were the participants. It is natural when a good number of the candidates have applied for a particular post which are very limited in number, majority of them are bound to be unsuccessful in selection. The petitioners are not entitled for the relief on another ground also that they have actually taken part in the lottery system and they cannot approbate and reprobate. It is also worth noting that only 16 persons have challenged the system of lottery out of thousands candidates and when there was an agreement by a recognized union which is represented by a majority of the employees, few of the persons who are not the members of said union cannot challenge the validity of said agreement more particularly when no illegality has been pointed out in the agreement and on the face of it, it appears to be very just and reasonable. It has been submitted that 335 applications of the male candidates and 135 applications of the female candidates were rejected which shows that there was scrutiny of the applications and accordingly the applications of the unsuccessful candidates were rejected and out of the balance candidates since all of them were eligible the system for selection by lottery system was adopted which is perfect in nature. The second contention that the reservation of 50 % for the women candidates is illegal has also no force because from the number of applications received it would be evident that the applications from the female candidates were more than the male candidates and beside for a job of sweeper/ scavenger the females are in the position to provide better services. As a matter if fact, injustice has been done to them in reducing their number to 50% when to would be evident that the applications of the female candidates were more than 50%. Taking over all position of the applicants, the nature of the service rendered and the eategory, I am of the view that reservation of 50% for the women candidates out of the total posts is not arbitrary or illegal.
(3.) THE third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the abvertisement should have been issued in daily news paper and simply by putting the same on the notice-board or to the persons who are members of the union is illegal. Normally, when permanent vacancies are to be filled in then the posts should be filled up by advertisement and it is directed that for future whenever the vacancies arise advertisement should be given in the local news paper because for the post in question it is not necessary that the persons already in service of the Municipal Council should be aware of it. Even non-scheduled caste persons and the educated persons are entitled for the appointment on the post looking to the problem of unemployment in the State and their right could be affected. In the present case it has been admitted that the vacancies were notified on the notice-board and against 100 posts of 1990, 4853 applications were received, and against 150 posts of 1992, 5435 applications were received. THE selection already made is upheld and it is directed that the respondents shall in future beside putting the information of vacancies on the notice-board shall also advertise in a local news paper so that the public in general may also apply. Under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964, it has been provided that a panel of the suitable persons has to be asked from the nearest empolyment exchange but under the proviso which has been added by notification dated 16-4-68 published on 20-6-1968 it has specifically been provided that in the case of sweepers/scavangers the requirement of this rule is not necessary. The fourth contention is that the applications which have been put to the lottery system are without taking into consideration the requirement of the rules, and character, age, physique and length of service should have been taken into consideration. In accordance with the provisions of Rules, 1964 there is a requirement of age under Rules 7 and 10 to be followed strictly. It has not been pointed out that any of the candidate was not falling within the age limit as prescribed under rule 7 and, therefore, no illegality is found therein. Regarding the character and physical fitness the rules have prescribed requirement and under rule 8 a character certificate has to be submitted and in accordance with rule 9 the candidate must be of gaod mental and bodily health free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties and also is required to produce a certificate to this effect from the medical officer which is stated to have been complied with and hence this point has also no force. ;