ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner claims appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on basis of his merit ascertained pursuant to recruitment process therefor completed following notification dated 10-3-2014 issued by the District and Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter 'the respondent').
(2.) The respondent issued notification dated 10-3-2014 for recruitment to 19 existing vacancies of LDC and 8 anticipated vacancies on the posts of LDC in 2014 in Sawai Madhopur judgeship. Of the 19 vacancies advertised, 9 were for the general category, and 10 for various reserved categories. No break up of 8 anticipated vacancies was detailed. Recruitment was by way of written examination followed by a computer typing test referable to Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1986'). The petitioner having the requisite eligibility applied for the said vacancies to the post of LDC, wrote the examination and participated in the computer typing test. He was placed at serial No.11 in the general category, in the select list issued by the respondent, but was however not appointed. A demand of justice notice through his counsel being of no avail, the petitioner has approached this court for direction to be considered for appointment on the vacancies obtaining on the post advertised as per his merit on the select list.
(3.) The respondent has filed a reply of denial. It has been submitted that against the 9 vacancies in general category on the post of LDC in the year 2014 only 7 appointments have been made as there were in fact that number of existing vacancies. 9 existing vacancies on the post in issue for general category were in fact wrongly computed and advertised in the first instance for reason of a computing error which included 2 vacancies in the general category in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gangapur City, which the High Court had directed not to be filled up. The petitioner being at serial No.11 in the select list could not be and was not appointed therefore. It was submitted that 8 anticipated vacancies on the post of LDC advertised in the notification dated 10- 3-2014 pertained to vacancies likely to arise in the course of the year 2014, for reasons of anticipated promotions. The said vacancies were therefore uncertain, and hence could not be filled up in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1986. They were wrongly advertised and can be of no avail to the petitioner. No candidate less meritorious than the petitioner has been appointed. The petitioner thus has no cause of action to approach this court. It was further submitted that appointments to vacancies on the post of LDC as per select list dated 25-6-2014 having been made in June, 2014, the panel has since expired in June, 2015 entailing lapsing of the remainder select list and no relief can be granted to the petitioner also on this ground.;