- (1.) THIS special appeal arises out of the judgment dated 9. 8. 1996 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2474/1996 by the learned single Judge. The learned Single Judge has negated the contention of the petitioner that the eligibility of the petitioner for recruitment against the vacancies advertised is to be governed by the old Rules of 1986 under which rules the petitioner was eligible and applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The contention of the petitioner to the effect that the amendment of Rules in 1995 cannot be made applicable to the vacancies which had been advertised much prior to the coming into force of the amendment of 1995 and against which the petitioner had also applied, was not accepted and the writ petition was dismissed in limine without issuing any notice to the respondents. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present special appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) THE facts, as stated in the petition, are that the petitioner has acquired the qualifications of B. Sc. Agriculture in IInd Division and Diploma in Marketing and Inspection in Agricultural Marketing from the Government of India. Respondent No. 2 Rajasthan Public Service Commission (referred to hereinafter as `the Commission') had invited applications for recruitment to various posts including 23 posts of Assistant Director (Junior) vide advertisement dated 5. 11. 1993, a copy whereof has been attached as Annex. P/1 to the writ petition. As per the advertisement Annex. P/1, the qualifications have been prescribed as to be Graduate in Economics, Commerce or Agriculture in IInd Division from a recognised University and the candidate should also be qualified in Agriculture Marketing from a recognised Institution. THE last date for submitting the applications was fixed as 31. 12. 1993. It is stated in the petition that the posts advertised in the advertisement pertained to the years 1986-87 to 1992-93 after vacancies have been determined by the respondent No. 1 in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Services Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1986' ). It is submitted that for about 6 years no such posts were advertised or filled up by the respondents and, therefore, vide advertisement Annex. P/1 the posts so advertised were to be governed by the recruitment Rules of 1986, which were in force at that time. It is submitted in the petitioner that the Government of Rajasthan had dire- cted the Public Service Commission not to fill up the vacancies of Assistant Director (Junior) as advertised vide Annex. P/1 for the reason that the Government was contemplating to bring some amendment by prescribing certain qualifications in the rules itself vide letter dated 28. 12. 1993 (Annex. P/2 ). It is stated that on 7. 5. 1994 the Commission had again sought direction from the Government for permission to fill up the vacancies, but once again the Government had, vide letter dated 23. 5. 1994 (Annex. P/3), informed the Commission that because of the reasons that the Government is contemplating to amend the rules, therefore, the posts should not be filled up. Ultimately, the Government had amended the rules in the month of April, 1995 and had made certain changes in the rules. By way of amendment in the rules the nomenclature of the post of Assistant Director (Junior) was redesignated as Marketing Officer and the basic qualifications were also changed i. e. the minimum qualification now prescribed under the amended rules was M. Sc. Agriculture or as prescribed in the Rules. A fresh advertisement was issued on 8. 1. 1996, a copy of which is attached as Annex. P/4 to the writ petition and the applications were invited for 26 posts of Marketing Officers as designated by way of amendment. The applicants were required to submit the applications by 7. 3. 1996. The eligibility qualifications as prescribed under the amended rules were M. Sc. Agriculture or a Degree in Arts with Economics, Commerce or Agriculture with minimum IInd Class and a Diploma in Marketing from a recongised Institution. The minimum and maxi- mum age prescribed under the advertisement were 21 and 33 years respectively. Vide amendment dated 19. 4. 1995 the designation of the post was changed and vide amendment dated 26. 4. 1995 certain qualifications were added. These amendments have been published in November, 1995. Both the amendments are reproduced as under :- AMENDMENT DATED 19. 4. 1995 " (2) The existing expression " Assistant Director (Junior)" occurring in Col. 4 against the entry at Sl. No. 3 and in Col. No. 2 against the entry at Sl. 4, shall be substituted by the expression "marketing Officer". " AMENDMENT DATED 26. 4. 1995 "the existing entry occurring in column No. 7, against S. No. 4 of the Schedule appended to the said Rules, shall be substituted by the following, namely :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "m. Sc. (Agriculture) with specialisation in Agriculture Economics/ Agriculture Marketing of a University established by law in India. OR (1) At least second class degree either in Arts with Economics or in Commerce or in Agriculture of a University established by law in India. (2) Specialised training in Agriculture Marketing from a recognised Institution. " The grievance of the petitioner in challenging the new advertisement is, that under the earlier advertisement Annex. P/1 the petitioner did fall within the age limit prescribed, but now in the fresh advertisement under the rules for the post of Marketing Officer, he had become over age because of lapse of time. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that recruitment to the vacancies relating to the year 1986-87 to 1992-93 was required to be made under the unamended Rules of 1986 and if at all the amendments of 1995 were to be made applicable, in that situation, those could only apply to the vacancies arising after the coming into force of the amendment in the Rules and that too prospectively. It is stated that once the vacancies are determined of a particular year, and the advertisement is made for recruitment and selection, the selection must be confined under the rules which were applicable at the time when the advertisement was made, because of the reason that the respondents are said to have kept the advertisement Annex. P/1 in abeyance for a period of two years after issuance of the advertisement Annex. P/1, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and his case must be considered under the unamended rules. It is further submitted that by way of amendment only the nome- nclature of the post was changed with certain provision of alternative added qualifications and the aforesaid amendments could not in any way affect the advertisement already made vide Annex. P. 1. It is submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner in response to the advertisement could not be ignored only because of the reason that the nomenclature of the post has been changed and the advertisement already inserted is deemed to continue for the additional reasons that the said advertisement was not cancelled. It has also been submitted that if the vacancies meant for direct recruitment are not filled up for a particular year and ultimately the vacancies are determined, those vacancies are to be filled up under the rules when they were determined and advertised. For the reason that the selection procedure has been initiated, the petitioner is praying for an appropriate writ, order or direction to fill up the posts of Assistant Director (Junior) in accordance with the advertisement Annex. P/1 under the unamended Rules of 1986 and to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Marketing Officer as now re-designated in continuation of his earlier application and the previous ad- vertisement could not be ignored, only because of the reason that certain anterna- tive qualifications were added or name of the post was changed. Separate detailed replies were filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in response to the notices issued by this Court in appeal and the stay application. It is stated in the reply that under the Rules of 1986 the posts of Assistant Director (Junior) are to be filled up after determination of vacancies through 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment and the steps were taken for filling up the said vacancies. It is stated that the Commission was informed that no recruitment be made in pursuance of the advertisement Annex. P/1 because the Government was contemplating to amend the rules. It is stated in the reply that the amendment was necessary to be made in order to give benefit of reservation to the Backward Classes. It is stated that 2 days before the last date of inviting the applications, a letter was written by the Government to the Commission to stay the process of selection for the reasons that the Government was contemplating to amend the rules.
(3.) IT is admitted by the respondent No. 2 Commission, that the appellant had applied for being considered in response to the advertisement dated 5. 11. 1993 Annex. P/1 but it is stated that the Government had withdrawn the requisition for holding recruitment on 3. 8. 1995. IT is further stated by the Commission that after withdrawal of the requisition the cadre structure given under the Rules of 1986 was revised and the post of Assistant Director (Junior) was redesignated as Marketing Officer and new qualifications were added and on receipt of the fresh requisition by the Commission from the State Government an advertisement dated 8. 1. 1996 was published. IT is denied that the un-amended rules can be made applicable to the vacancies advertised prior to the amendment of 1995. IT is denied that the vaca- ncies as advertised vide Annex. P/1, relating to the years 1986-87 and 1992-93, are to be filled up in accordance with the rules prevailing in the relevant years. Four points arise for determination in the present case i. e. (1) Whether under Rule 8 of the Rules of 1986 when the vacancies had been determined finally and had been advertised for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Director (Junior) with the qualifications as mentioned in the then prevailing rules and the petitioner having applied for the same, was the Government bound to consider the case of the petitioner under the rules as prevalent at that time? (2) Whether the amendment of the rules by prescribing certain additional alternative qualifications (even though the enhancement of the qualifications did not affect the petitioner as he is educationally qualified under the new amendment rules as well) is to be made applicable prospectively, (3) Whether the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had at any time withdrawn the advertisement by issuing a new advertisement or whether the advertisement Annex. P/1 was ever superseded by the Rajasthan Pub- lic Service Commission or not and (4) and to what relief ultimately the petitioner should be entitled to. For the contention that the recruitment as per advertisement Annex. P/1 for the relevant years from 1986-87 to 1992-93, when the vacancies have been determined, is to be governed by the unamended Rules of 1986, the petitioner relies on Y. V. Rangaiah and Others vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors. , (1) A. A. Calton vs. Director of Education and Another, (2) P. Ganeshwar Rao and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (3) A. P. Public Service Commission & Anr. vs. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors. , (4), P. Mahendran and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (5) and on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. Ram Shanker Asopa vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. ;