VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA,J. - (1.) Consented by the counsel for the parties, the batch of writ applications has been taken up together, at this stage, for final disposal by this common order, in view of the identicalness of questions of facts and law raised.
(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts are: that the State-respondents vide advertisement dated 13th April, 2018, invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of 'Safai Karamchari', withdrawing the earlier advertisement dated 25th May, 2012 and 31st May, 2012, to the extent of appointments not made, even after completion of selection process. However, the candidature of the participating candidates of recruitment of 2012, was to be considered in the new selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 13th April, 2018, allowing relaxation of age. The above noted writ applications have been instituted assailing the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 13th April, 2018, on various grounds. In view of the pleadings of the parties; the controversy projected in the writ applications can, broadly, be classified into five issues, which needs adjudication by this Court. The five issues that emerge for adjudication are: (A) whether the procedure for direct recruitment on the basis of Lottery system, is valid and legal ? (B) whether the vacancies year-marked for reserved category after having been filled up, the candidates of reserved category could be considered against Open/General category vacancies ? (C) whether the left over vacancies of the selection process of year 2012, to the extent where appointments could be made, could be withdrawn and included in the selection process of year 2018 ?. and; (D) whether the manual scavengers were/are entitled for preference in the selection process ?.
(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy on the issues aforesaid; it will be profitable to take note of the singular factual matrix and circumstances of the case at hand, wherein recruitment to the post of 'Safai Karamchari', could be made for a long time since 1992. (i) A Coordinate Bench of this Court, while adjudicating upon SBCWP No. 1177/1992: Sushila v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. along with analogous matters, decided on 21st October, 1992, in the backdrop of claim of the petitioners therein for regularization and challenge to termination of their employment; while issuing the directions, made an order for selection on the basis of lottery system, relying upon earlier opinion of this court in the case of Rajasthan Dainik Vetan Bhogi Anshkalin Safai Mazdoor Sangathan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.-(90): 1992 (2) RLR 516 , wherein it was observed that where no minimum qualification is required at all and all uneducated persons are eligible than the appointment in such a case could only be properly made by lottery system. (ii) On 13 January, 2003, a circular was issued for selection on the basis of lottery. Be that as it may, in SBCWP No. 12234/2009, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the appointment on the post of sweeper in favour of those who had worked for less than 240 days. (iii) In the case of Shankar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: SBCWP No. 10715/2009 , the circular dated 13th January, 2003, providing appointment by lottery system was depricated unless the statutory rules provided for such a procedure, and therefore, directed the respondents to continue the process under the aforesaid circular.;