M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this bunch of writ petitions, a challenge is made to the appointment on the post of Ayurved Compounder. It is pursuant to the advertisement in the year 1996 and 1997.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have challenged the process for determination of merit and select list for appointment on the post of Ayurved Compounder. It is submitted that the respondents failed to determine the merit based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination. The appointments were given based on determination of merit batch -wise. If a candidate has passed the qualifying course earlier in time, was given priority and merit position above the candidates, who had passed the course later on. It is by making year -wise batch. The aforesaid procedure was contrary to the rules applicable for appointment and otherwise, it was held to be illegal in the writ petition decided by this Court in the case of Gopal Lal Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3688/95), decided on 11.05.2006. The only difference is of the year of advertisement. Therein, it was in pursuance to the advertisement of the year 1995, whereas the cases in hand are in pursuance to the advertisement in the year 1996 and of 1997. The judgment of the learned Single Judge therein was challenged before the Division Bench, but the State remained unsuccessful therein. The appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan was dismissed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 03.10.2007 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 807/2006. The case in hand is covered by the judgment aforesaid. If the merit position is determined based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination, the petitioners would stand higher in merit than the candidates, who have been given appointment. In view of the above, the writ petitions be allowed by applying the judgment in the case of Gopal Lal Sharma(supra). It is more so when not only the post is same, but the rules applicable therein are also same. It is further contended that four candidates were given appointment vide order dated 25.02.1999, though their names did not appear even in the merit list and was beyond the lifetime of the panel. The respondents cannot make discrimination with the present petitioners. The issue of delay and expiry of lifetime of the panel is not otherwise raised by the respondents while submitting reply, thus, should not be taken as a ground to dismiss the writ petitions.
(3.) IT is also stated that few other candidates were given appointments in pursuance to a decree passed by the Civil Court and therein also, the appointments were subsequent to expiry of lifetime of the panel. Thus, the petitioners are also entitled to the similar benefit, as was given to the four candidates vide appointment order dated 25.02.1999 and the subsequent order of appointment in favour of those, who remained successful in the Civil Court.;