GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 25. 9. 1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector/platoon Commander with effect from 1. 6. 1998 with all consequential benefits including confirmation, seniority etc.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- THE recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector/platoon Commander in Police Department, Government of Rajasthan is governed by the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1989" ). THE posts of Sub Inspector/platoon Commander are inter- changeable. THEre is same recruitment process and same qualifications are required for the post of Sub Inspector and Platoon Commander. THE examinations and selections are also common. Under the Rules of 1989, the selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police is held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "commission" ). THE further case of the petitioner is that the Commission issued an advertisement Annex. 1 dated 23. 1. 1996 inviting applications for 226 posts of Sub Inspector/platoon Commander and in pursuance of the said advertisement Annex. 1, the petitioner being eligible applied for the said post of Sub-Inspector/platoon commander. He was called to appear in the written test and he appeared and he was selected for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. THE further case of the petitioner is that when he was not given appointment he submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2 Director General of Police, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 12. 8. 1997, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 2. THEreafter, the petitioner received a communication dated 23. 8. 1997 asking the petitioner to undergo Medical Test and Character Verification. A copy of the said communication dated 23. 8. 1997 is marked as Annex. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner underwent medical test and character verification and completed the same also. THE further case of the petitioner is that on 20. 10. 1997, an order Annex. 4 was issued by the respondent No. 2 Director General of Police, Government of Rajasthan by which as many as 181 candidates were given appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police and the persons in general category upto the merit No. 120 were given appointment. THEreafter, another order Annex. 5 dated 6. 11. 1997 was issued by the respondent No. 2 Director General of Police by which appointments to the persons belonging to general category were given upto the merit No. 181. According to the petitioner, thereafter, through another orders, appointments were given to the persons belonging to the general category upto the merit No. 203. THE further case of the petitioner is that some persons though appointed, but did not join and, therefore, a report to this effect was sent by the Principal, Police Training Centre, Jodhpur to the respondent No. 2 Director General of Police through letter dated 17. 4. 1998, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 6. According to the petitioner, five candidates of general category had not joined in pursuance of the advertisement Annex. 1 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation on 11. 5. 1998, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 7 and the case of the petitioner is that he stands at serial No. 206 in the merit list and since appointments in the general category have been given upto serial No. 203 and since some of the persons appointed in general category have not joined, therefore, his case should have been considered by the respondents for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police and by not considering his case, a discrimination has been made. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. The main case of the petitioner is that appointments to the persons upto serial No. 203 in the merit list in the general category have been given and he stood at serial No. 206 in the merit list and since five persons belonging to general did not join, therefore, appointment should have been given to him. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it was submitted by them that no doubt through order Annex. 5 dated 6. 11. 1997, the selected persons were ordered to join the training and through letter Annex. 7 dated 17. 4. 1998, the Principal, Rajasthan Police Training Centre, Jodhpur sent the report that some persons had not joined, but in the meantime, a fresh advertisement was already issued by the Commission to fill up the posts of Sub Inspector of Police and the entire recruitment process in pursuance of advertisement Annex. 1 came to an end and in these circumstances, it was not possible for the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner. Furthermore, since persons junior to the petitioner in the merit list have not been given appointment and therefore, no case of discrimination has been made out. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. A rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner and it has been submitted by the petitioner that it was wrong to say that a fresh advertisement was issued by the Commission and the process of selection in pursuance to advertisement Annex. 1 came to an end and persons were also appointed in pursuance of advertisement Annex. 1 dated 23. 1. 1996. Hence, the case of the petitioner should have been considered. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. There is no dispute on the point that in pursuance of advertisement Annex. 1 dated 23. 1. 1996, appointments to the persons in the general category have been given upto serial No. 203 of the merit list and the petitioner stood at serial No. 206 in the merit list.
(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that even persons standing at serials No. 204 and 205 in the merit list have not been given appointment. There is also no dispute on the point that no person junior to the petitioner in the merit list has been given appointment. There is also no dispute on the point that no waiting list was prepared by the respondents. ;