- (1.) The prayer made in this writ petition is for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Personnel Officer w.e.f. the date of cancellation of appointment of one Shri K.L. Bachhani and for grant of consequential benefits.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that after doing his graduation in Law and securing Diploma in Labour Laws from the University of Rajasthan the petitioner joined service as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1973 when he was appointed as such in the service of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board'). He was promoted as Junior Accountant in the year 1987. The Board in its meeting held on 10.10.84 took a decision to create 17 posts of Assistant Personnel Officers and to fill them from amongst the departmental candidates by making internal advertisement. In pursuance to that decision of the Board the internal advertisement was issued on 10th June, 1985. Applications were invited for 19 posts of Assistant Personnel Officers from amongst the departmental candidates. The candidature of eligible persons were considered by the Board through a written competitive examination which was followed by interview. A merit list was prepared on the basis of the selections made by the Board and on that basis 19 persons were appointed as Assistant Personnel Officers vide order dated, 13th January 1986. One of these 19 candidates belongs to Scheduled Caste and other candidates belong to the general category. The candidate who was at No. 18 from amongst the members of the general category, namely, Shri K.L. Bachhani did not join within the time specified by the Board in the order dated, 13.1.86. Subsequently, another order dated 18.2.86 (Annex. 4) was issued and his appointment was cancelled.
(3.) When the petitioner found that Shri K.L. Bachhani had not joined and one vacancy had remained unfilled, he made representations for being appointed as Assistant Personnel Officer claiming that he was the person whose name stood in the merit list prepared by the Board. The candidature of the petitioner was supported by the Director of Personnel who made request to the Dy. Secretary (Recruitment) vide his U.O. Note dated, 6.3.83 that the petitioner be considered for appointment as Assistant Personnel Officer against the vacant post. The Dy. Secretary (Recruitment) in his turn sought approval for appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Personnel Officer and for his placement at the disposal of the D.O.P. for further posting. However, order for his appointment was not issued and, therefore, the petitioner made representation dated, 29th March, 1986 to the Secretary of the Board. This was followed by representation dated, 25.4.86 to the Chairman as also to the Member (Administration). The Member (Administration) sought a report from the Director (Personnel). On 23rd June, 1986, the Dy. Secretary (Recruitment) again made his recommendation for appointment in favour of the petitioner. This time also the petitioner did not get appointment*He therefore, made another representation to the Secretary of the Board on 4.7.86. The petitioner has claimed that this representation was sent to the Dy. Secretary for examination. The matter continued to remain under examination of one or the other authority and the petitioner continued to make representations dated, 19.5.87, 7.9.87, 12.10.87, 26.8.89,12.3.90 and finally he served a notice for demand of justice. He claimed that on the basis of his name having been included in the merit list, he had a right to be appointed as Assistant Personnel Officer. The petitioner's case is that although the functionaries of the Board had made recommendations for his appointment as Assistant Personnel Officer, ultimate order of appointment was never issued.;