KOCHHAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Fazlur Rehman Khan, was originally appointed as a Computer in the Regional Transport Survey Authority on 13. 10. 1965, and on his being declared surplus on the said post, was absorbed in the Evaluation Department on 1. 10. 1967. He was promoted to the posts of Investigator and Research Assistant on 14. 10. 1968 and on 28. 01. 1975, respectively, and was confirmed on the latter post on 15. 09. 1982. THE Rajasthan Evaluation Service Rules, 1979 (for short, "the Rules") came into force with effect from 15. 02. 1979, and in term of Rule-26 of the Rules, the petitioner was given an urgent temporary appointment on the post of Evaluation Officer vide the order dated 25. 09. 1979. THE Rules provided that the post of Evaluation Officer was to be filled in to the extent of 66. 2/3 per cent by direct recruitment and 33. 1/3 per cent by promotion from amongst the Research Assistants having experience of three years. THE Rules further provided that a direct recruit to the post of Evaluation Officer should have the qualification of Second Class Post-Graduate degree in Economics/sociology/statistics/mathematics/ Commerce/public Administration from an Indian or Foreign University, candidates with a Post-Graduate degree in Mathematics or Statistics or Public Administration should have had Economics or Sociology as one of the subjects in degree course and should have, one year experience of handling important statistical records on the post of Statistical/research Assistant or on an equivalent post in a Government Department or University or Research Organisation and one year's experience of conducting Socio-Economic Sample Surveys, designing of schedules, supervising the field work and drafting memoranda and reports. On receipt of a request from the State Government (the respondent No. l), the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (the respondent No. 2) invited applications for filling in six posts of Evaluation Officers and thereafter selected the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 and recommended their names for being appointed on the said posts vide the letter dated 31. 05. 1986. THE petitioner filed this writ petition on 23. 06. 1986, challenging the selections of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 on the ground that they were not eligible for being selected for the posts of Evaluation Officers and also contending that the vacancies for direct recruitment and for promotees, had not been correctly calculated by the respondent No. l and claiming to be entitled to be regularly appointed on the post of Evaluation Officer. He pleaded that the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 had been working as Statistical Assistants and the respondents Nos. 6 to 8 were working as Research Assistants before their selections and that the nature of their duties was such that they could not acquire the experience required for filling in the posts of Evaluation Officers by direct recruitment. It was also pleaded that if the vacancies had been correctly calculated, it would have been found that there were only three vacancies available for direct recruitment to the post of Evaluation Officer and that in these circumstances, the selections of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8, were not proper and he was entitled to be given regular appointment on that post,after making the correct calculation of the vacancies for the promotee officers. On receipt of notice, the writ petition has been contested.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. Shri AK Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that taking into account the duties and work chart of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8, it was not possible for them to have acquired exeperience as required in the Rules and that as such, their selections and appointments by direct recruitment to the posts of Evaluation Officers, were illegal. It has not been disputed that the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were working as Statistical Assistants and the respondents Nos. 6 to 8 were working as Research Assistants, before their selections for the posts of Evaluation Officers, by the respondent No. 2 and their appointments (during the pendency of the writ petition) on the said posts. The petitioner has quoted the job-chart of the Statistical Assistants, as prescribed by the Department of Economics and statistics and has pleaded that a person working as a Statistical Assistant by discharging the functions, mentioned in the job-chart, cannot acquire the experience of drafting work of reports with regard to the socio-economic sample survey and designing of schedules and that as such, the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were ineligible to be considered for the posts in question. In para-17 of the writ petition, the petitioner has quoted the job-chart, prescribed by the Evaluation Department for the posts of Research Assistants, and has pleaded that which working as Research Assistants, it could not have been possible to acquire experience of drafting of memoranda and reports with reference to socio-economic sample survey and designing of schedules and as such, the respondents Nos. 5 to 8 were ineligible for being considered for the posts of Evaluation Officers by direct recruitment. In the reply, filed on behalf of the respondent No. l, it has been pleaded that the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 had the prescribed requisite experience and had produced certificates of experience from their respective offices, showing that the relevant work was being taken from them. It has also been pleaded that the prescribed chart for the post of Statistical Assistant, as quoted by the petitioner, shows that the duties of the Statistical Assistants include assisting in research work and assisting in assessing the impact of various developmental activities schemes and projects and preparation of reports and reviews and that while performing such duties,one can have easily the experience of drafting work of reports with regard to the socio-economic sample survey and designing of schedules. In reply to para-17 of the writ petition, it has been pleaded that the job-chart, mentioned by the petitioner himself, shows that the Research Assistants were making correspondence with the Field Officers, regarding progress at various stages of the study draft and that while making correspondence with the Field Officers in respect of study reports, the Research Assistants have to draft the memoranda and reports and that similarly, while making scrutiny of reports, received from the field, the Research Assistants acquire the experience of drafting memoranda and reports and that moreover, the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 had worked on the posts of Investigation for more than one year, which posts provided that they would submit observation-notes and other related information, desired by the office/headquarters and that preparation of obser-vation-notes gives sufficient experience of drafting of memoranda and reports. The contention of the learned counsel , for Respondents, is that while performing the works and duties, the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 could acquire the requisite experience and that experience-certificates (Ex. 3 to 8), issued by the competent authorities, show that they acquired the said experience and further that the genuineness or correctness of the certificates, have not been challenged by the petitioner at any time.
(3.) CONFRONTED with this position, the learned counsel for the petitioner, did not press the point any further. In this view of the matter, I hold that the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 were having the requisite experience and were eligible for being considered for the posts of Evaluation Officers and that their selections on this count, cannot be challenged. The next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the available vacancies had been wrongly calculated for the purposes of determining the vacancies to be filled in by promotion. ;