PRAKASH TATIA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III in pursuance of advertisement No. 1/98 issued by the respondents. According to petitioner, the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste and as per the reservation policy there should have been 16% posts reserved for the member of the Scheduled Caste whereas the respondents by taking the help of notification Annex. P/2 dated 11th March, 1998 provided reservation of 45% posts for the Scheduled Tribe and only 5% for the members of the Scheduled Caste and because of this reason only, the petitioner's name included in the select list Annex. P/3.
(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a clarification was also issued by the State Government in response to the letter of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara dated 27th July, 1998. By this clarification dated 9th August, 1998, it was conveyed to the Zila Parishad, Banswara that as per the notification dated 11th March, 1998 it applies to the posts which are having the Grade from S.No. 1 to 7 and it has no application to the post of Teacher Grade-III, which false in the category-9 of the salary structure. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the respondents is absolutely illegal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, in fact, the notification dated 11th March, 1998 was issued to supplement the earlier notification dated 22nd March, 1995 and notification dated 7th Nov., 1996. In the notification of the year 1995, the posts of teachers were already included whereby reservation has been made upto 45% for the member of the Scheduled Tribe and 5% for the member of Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be included in the select list. Though, the copy of notification of the year 1995 has not been placed on record, but it has been shown in court today.;