CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan has challenged the judgment dated 13. 8. 1996, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the State to give emergent temporary appointment to the Respondent on the post of Revenue Inspector in the Municipality.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that according to the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (henceforth to be referred to as "the Rules of 1963", for short) the post of Revenue Inspector is a cadre post. Initially, in 1984, the Department of Local Bodies and Self-Government had advertised about 2000 vacancies for different posts, including the post of Revenue Inspector. However, after receiving the applications, the Department did not fill up the vacancies. THErefore, some of the applicants challenged the omission on the part of the Department in not filling up the vacancies by filing writ petitions before this Court. Eventually, in the case of Ratan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1990 (1) RLR 512) vide judgment dated 26. 4. 89, a Division Bench of this Court directed that "different Commissions for different Municipal Boards/councils throughout the State of Rajasthan will advertise different categories of vacant posts in the subordinate service and if any of the petitioners or any other person who had applied earlier has become overage, the age shall be relaxed by the government up to five years and the State Government is directed to pass necessary orders in that respect. THE Commissions shall invite applications and make selections. THE Municipal Boards/councils are directed to send the requisitions to the Commissions and then the Commissions shall invite applications and make selections. THE entire process shall be completed within six months. THEreafter, the Commissions shall forward the names of the candidates selected to the different Municipal Boards/councils and then the appointing authorities will make the appointments within two months thereafter. Thus, in all eight months time is allowed for the entire process. " But before this judgment could be implemented, the State Government filed a Review Petition which was decided vide order dated 1. 2. 90. According to the said Order the benefit of the Judgment dated 26. 4. 89 was to be confined only to the twenty-two petitioners who had approached the High Court. Subsequently, on 19. 1. 90, the Department again issued an advertisement, Advertisement No. 1/90, for 1113 vacancies including thirty vacancies for the post of Revenue Inspector. In order to extend the last date for submission of the application, the Department issued another advertisement, Advertisement No. 2/90, whereby the last date was extended up to 17. 6. 90. However, again after inviting the application, the Department did not make any appointment. Hence, again the prospective candidates filed a series of writ petitions, challenging the omission on the part of the Department. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5695/1992, Ratan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, vide judgment dated 21. 5. 93, this Court directed that in case the vacancies were available, then the case of the Petitioners should be considered in accordance with law. However, the Department did not implement the directions. Since the Department had neither implemented the directions of the Court, nor filled the vacancies in accordance with the advertisement issued in 1990, the present Respondent filed a writ petition challenging the omission on the part of the Department. In the said writ petition, the Petitioner (the present Respondent before us) prayed for two relieves: firstly, that the Department be directed to complete the selection process. Secondly, the Department be directed to appoint the Petitioner on an emergent temporary basis till the regularly appointed persons are available. Vide judgment dated 26. 8. 96, the Learned Single Judge has directed the Department to appoint the Petitioner on emergent temporary basis to the said post till regular appointments are made. The State is aggrieved by the direction to appoint the Respondent on emergent temporary basis. Hence, this petition before us. Mr. G. K. Garg, the learned counsel for the State, has argued that the Respondent had merely applied for the post of Revenue Inspector. Mere application for selection would not clothe him with a right of appointment. The right of appointment is an inchoate right. Therefore, non-appointment to the post would not entitle the Respondent to challenge the omission on the part of the State in not completing the selection process. According to him, the State is not required to complete the selection process if it chooses not to do so in accordance with law. Moreover, "an emergent temporary appointment" is to be made in accordance with Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963. The Learned Single Judge has ignored the said procedure and has straight away directed that the Respondent should be appointed on "emergent temporary basis". Hence, the Learned Single Judge has violated the letter and spirit of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963. On the other hand, Mr. Man Singh Gupta, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, has vehemently argued that repeatedly the Department had advertised vacancies for different posts and repeatedly it had failed to complete the selection process. Twice this Court had directed the Department to complete the said process, but the Department did not pay any heed to the said directions. Instead of regularly appointing the persons, the Department appoints people only on "an emergent temporary basis" and keeps them employed for a long time. After a long time, these people are regularized. Hence, people are being given a "back door entry" into the service. He has supported the impugned judgment.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment. The Rules of 1963 prescribe the procedure for appointment to the cadre post. Rule 8 prescribes the method of recruitment as under: -      " 8. Methods of recruitment : Vacancies after the commencement of these rules shall be filled: - (i) By appointment in the lowest grade of each category. (ii) By promotion from the lower to a higher grade in the same category. (iii) By transfer of persons holding corresponding posts under a Board. (iv) By taking an official on deputation from the State Government. The ratio of filling up the vacancies by direct recruitment and promotion shall be 50:50, unless otherwise provided. Rule 10 states that "subject to the provisions of these rules and direction of the State Government the Executive Officer shall determine at the commencement of each year the number of vacancies anticipated under each grade under different categories during the course of the year and the number of persons likely to be recruited". Part IV lays down the procedure for direct recruitment. Rule 17 imposes a duty on the Executive Officer to submit, at the beginning of every year, a statement of vacancies under each grade under different categories likely to fall vacant to the Director. According to Rule 18, a consolidated list of vacancies shall be prepared. Rule 19 prescribes that on receipt of a requisition for direct recruitment to the service, applications shall be invited by the Commission in such manner as they deem fit. Rule 21 prescribes the scrutiny of the applications. Rule 22 casts a duty on the Commission to prepare a board-wise list of candidates for considering suitable persons for appointment and thereafter, the appointments are to be made. Rule 27 does permit the appointment on emergent and temporary basis in the following words: -      " 27. Emergent Temporary appointments - (1) A vacancy in the service may be filled temporarily by the appointing authority by appointing thereto a person eligible for direct recruitment under the rules or by temporarily promoting thereto a person holding the next lower post and possessing the requisite qualifications : Provided that no such temporary appointment either by promotion or by direct recruitment shall be continued beyond a period of one year without referring to the Promotion Board, in case of promotion and to the Commission in the case of direct recruitment for their concurrence and on their refusal to concur, such appointment shall be terminated immediately. Provided further that until selected candidates are made available by the Commission, the term may be extended by the Director from time to time. (2) In case the vacancy under sub-rule (1) is proposed to be filled in by direct recruitment, the same shall be notified to the nearest Employment Exchange which shall be asked to send a panel of names of persons possessing the requisite qualifications, consisting at least 5 times the number of the vacancies to be filled. Besides this an employee of the Municipal Board/council possessing the requisite qualification will also be eligible to apply for such vacancy subject to the age restrictions provided in Rule 12. Such appointment will also be considered for appointment alongwith the list of candidates recommended from the Employment Exchange. The appointing authority shall then appoint suitable candidates to the posts from amongst the candidates whose names appear in the panel of names sent by the Employment Exchange and also from the list of applicants who are Municipal Exployees. " ;