J.R.CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THE case of the petitioner is that certain posts of Librarian were advertised by the Distt. Education Officer, Pali way -back in the year 1987. The petitioner applied for that post and was called for interview. But thereafter he did not hear about it. It is his contention that he made several representations to know about the result of selection process. Of course copies of those representations have not been filed, but the contention of petitioner is that a selection has taken place and appointments have not been given because of ban imposed by the State Government on any fresh appointments. The ban was imposed on 20.5.88 and came to be lifted on 27.12.89. It was not the fault of petitioner that he was not appointed on account of the ban. Vacancies exist after the ban was lifted and, therefore, the petitioner should have been given appointment.
(2.) THE contention of Mr. Bhati is that merely because the petitioner has been called for interview, it confers no right on him to be appointed. It is not his case that he has been selected and his name appears in the merit list and when that is not there simply because he was called for interview it confers no right on him to be appointed. The State Government has failed to file any reply to show that the selection process was not completed and no merit list was prepared. Under these circumstances we are handicapped to take any definite view. Mr. Mridul drew my attention to a Division Bench Decision of this Court rendered in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur etc. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1982 RLR 762 wherein facts were that the Selection process was completed before the ban was imposed and, therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed during the ban which remained in force from July, 1980 to March 1981. The Lordships of Division Bench have held that the selection process has been completed and petitioner came in merit and he should be given appointment after the ban is lifted. My attention was next drawn to a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in WLR 1991(s) Raj. 142. That was also a case where posts of Research Assistants were advertised, selection process was over and merit listr was prepared, but appointments could not be given on account of ban. The learned Single Judge took a view that this ban cannot operate to the disadvantage of petitioner. It was for administrative reason that the appointment was delayed and the action of appointment i.e. selection process which has been completed cannot be set at naught for extraneous reasons i.e. ban the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Research Assistant.
(3.) IN this case I have already observed earlier that we are handicapped because there is no reply from the side of State as to whether the selection process has been completed or has not been completed and whether the merit list has been prepared or not. Be that as it may, the posts were advertised the interviews were held on 13.1.1987 and a ban was imposed on 20.5.88 therefore, if the selection process has been completed before 20.5.88 and merit list was prepared then after lifting of ban if any vacancy of Librarian exists with the respondent -department, then the petitioner should be offered employment as Librarian within a period of three months on the basis of his merit in the merit list. However if the selection process has not been completed and no merit list has been prepared or if prepared, the petitioner name does not exist in the merit, then it will confer no right on the petitioner to get himself appointed on the post of Librarian with the respondent department even if any vacancy exists. The writ petition stands disposed on merits with the aforesaid observations with no order as to costs.;