ASOPA, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction declaring the method adopted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) in getting the preferences expressed in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination under two separate captions namely `state Services' and `subordinate Services' to be illegal and unconstitutional, with a further direction to replace the system of securing preferences in one combined list instead of two separate lists from all the candidates. The petitioner has also prayed that he may be appointed to the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service instead of Rajasthan Jail Service.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the RPSC advertised 142 posts of "state Services' and "subordinate Services" which were subsequently increased, for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services in November, 1990 to be filled in by combined competitive examination under the provisions of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 (in short `the Rules of 1962' ). THE petitioner while working as School Lecturer filled the application form for State as well as Subordinate Services. THE petitioner gave preferences for the State Services as well as Subordinate Services as under: " State Services 1. Rajasthan Administrative Service 2. Rajasthan Police Service 3. Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Service 4. Rajasthan Food & Civil Supplies Service 5. Rajasthan Accounts Service 6. Rajasthan Cooperative Service 7. Rajasthan Industries Service 8. Rajasthan Tourism Service 9. Rajasthan Jail Service 10. Rajasthan Insurance Service 11. Rajasthan Employment Service Subordinate Services 1. Rajasthan Tehsildar Service 2. Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services 3. Rajasthan Food & Civil Supplies Subordinate Services 4. Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services 5. Rajasthan Industries Subordinate Services 6. Rajasthan cooperative Subordinate Services 7. Rajasthan Devasthan Subordinate Service. " In the combined merit list, petition secured 101th position. On the basis of said merit and preference the petitioner was recommended for Rajasthan Jail Service. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner did not join the Rajasthan Jail Service and preferred appointment in Rajasthan Tehsildar Service for the reason that persons lower in merit have been appointed in Rajasthan Tehsildar Service and further the Commission has acted illegally in providing separate option form for the State Service and Subordinate Service for which as per Rule 4 of the Rules combined competitive examination was held. The petitioner has also given some examples of other services while asking for the combined preferences. It is further stated in the writ petition that as per the scheme of the Rules he is entitled to common preference for the State Services and Subordinate Service. Rpsc has filed reply to the writ petition and contested the petition on the ground that as per Schedule I and II attached to the Rules, two preference forms are required to be filled in and further, there are provisions of preference under Rule 10 (4), 15 and 18 according to which the Rpsc has to consider the preferences of the candidates while preparing merit list of the particular service. Since the petitioner's name appeared as per his merit-cum-preference in the list of Rajasthan Jail Service therefore, the Rpsc has not committed any error in recommending his name for appointment in the Rajasthan Jail Service. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that since as per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1962, combined competitive examination in to be held for State Services and Subordinate Services. As per rule 10 (1) application form is common, fees is common and common preference form for State Service and Subordinate Service is required to be prescribed, therefore, there is no reason for not prescribing common preference form. He has not disputed the fact that in case separate form is to be considered then his name stands in the Rajasthan Jail Services but he has further submitted that on account of the adoption of faulty system of inviting two separate option/preference forms for State Service and Subordinate Service his case for appointment to the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service has been seriously prejudiced and therefore, the aforesaid action of the RPSC is arbitrary. The petitioner has also cited judgments on the issue of availability of the post and creation of post as well as moulding the relief where a case is made out in favour of the petitioner. Submission of the counsel for the RPSC is that as per Schedule I and II attached to the Rules, two preference forms are required to be filled in and further, there are provisions of preference under Rule 10 (4), 15 and 18 according to which the RPSC has to consider the preferences of the candidates while preparing merit list of the particular service. Since the petitioner's name appeared as per his merit-cum-preference in the list of Rajasthan Jail Service therefore, the RPSC has not committed any error in recommending his name for appointment in the Rajasthan Jail Service.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, further considered the record of the case and the rival submissions of the parties. Rules 10 (1), 10 (4), 15 and 18 of the Rules of 1962 are quoted below: " 10. Form of application and examination fee:- (1) The application shall be made in the form approved by the Commission and obtainable from the Secretary to the Commission on payment of such fee, if any, as the Commission may, from time to time, fix: Provided that the persons repatriated from Burma and Ceylon on or after 1. 3. 1963 and from East African Countries of Kenya, Tanganyilka, Uganda and Zanzibar shall be exempted from payment of cost of application form prescribed by the Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, subject to the condition that the Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that such persons are not in a position to pay such fee: Provided further that the persons repatriated from Burma and Ceylon on or after 1. 3. 1963 and from East African countries of Kenya, Tanganylka, Uganda and Zanzibar shall be exempted from payment of cost of application form prescribed by the Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, subject to the condition that the Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that such persons are not in position to pay such fee: Provided further that the persons repatriated from Burma and Ceylon on or after 1. 3. 1963 and from East African countries of Kenya, Tanganylka, Uganda and Zanzibar shall be exempted from payment of Application fee or "examination Fee" as the case may be, as prescribed by the Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, subject to the condition that the Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that such persons are not in a position to pay such fee. " 2 . . . 3. . . . (4) Any person may apply to be admitted as a candidate for appointment to posts in any one or more of the services mentioned in the notice for which he is eligible. He shall state in the application the posts to the various services he wishes to compete for and the order of his preference for such posts in such case only one application and one payment of the fees shall be sufficient. No request for alteration in the preference indicated by a candidate in respect of services for which he/she is competing or in respect of the cadres to which he/she would like to be considered for allotment would be considered unless the request for such alternation or new insertion, if any, is received in the office of the Commission within 30 days of the date of declaration of the result of the written examination. No communication either from the Commission or from the Government would be sent to the candidates asking them to indicate their revised preferences, if any, for the various cadres/services after, they have submitted their application. " " 15. Recommendation of the Commission:- (1 ). . . . (2) . . . (3) The commission, while giving weight to the preference for the posts in the different services expressed by a candidate in his application, may recommend him for appointment to any post in any such service for which it considers him suitable. (4) . . . " " 18. Selection by Government or by the Appointing authority:- (1) Subject to the number of posts specified in the notice issued under rule 8 and subject to reservations of posts in favour of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes, Non-gazetted employees, physically handicapped persons and Ministerial Staff in respect of posts included in Schedule-I and Schedule-II, the Government or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be shall select candidates who stand highest in the order of merit in the list prepared by the Commission under rule 15 strictly in accordance with the order of preference given by the candidates in their application forms for different Service/posts: Provided. . . (2) . . . " In my view, in the scheme of Rules, there is no provision for combined option/preference form for State Service and Subordinate Service. Merely because the examination was common, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the separate option form/preferences were not to be filled for State Services and Subordinate Service. As regards submission of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, counsel for the petitioner that rule 10 (1) of the Rules with regard to holding of combined competitive examination and charging of common fee will give a right to the petitioner to submit option of common form containing the name of State Service as well as Subordinate Service. In my considered opinion, the object of Rules of 1962 is to save time, money, labour of candidates and curb the delay in making appointments in both the Services. Otherwise also, on raising the query to counsel for the petitioner as to what prevented him from not opting for State Service and directly opting Rajasthan Tehsildar Service while filling the examination form, his reply was that it could have been done by him but simply on this count, his aforesaid arguments cannot be thrown out. In my view, the argument has already been considered but an opportunity was available to the petitioner to opt for the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service only and since he has not done so, therefore, he is not entitled to any other opportunity. Apart from above, the petitioner has also not availed the second opportunity of changing the option as required under Rule 10 (4) of the Rules. Therefore, submission of Mr. Kumawat is accepted and submission of Mr. Rajendra Prasad is not accepted. ;