- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. An advertisement was issued on 1.4.1994 for giving appointment for various post of Lab Assistants Grade-III. The petitioner applied in pursuance of the said advertisement, copy of which has been placed on record as S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO. 880/96 Kirori Lal vs. The State of Raj. & anr. Annexture-1. As per the said advertisement, total posts were nine, out of which four were reserved for boys candidates and five for girls candidates. For reservation, five posts were kept for General Category, two posts for Schedule Caste category and two for Schedule Tribe category. The petitioner is candidate in the category of Schedule Tribe. The petitioner succeeded in initial selection and his name was found place in the merit list and he was called for interview on 10.6.1994. The petitioner's contention is that in the category of selected candidates, in the select list of Schedule Tribe, his number in the list was at S.No.1. However, the two appointment orders were issued, one on 24.3.1995 and second on 30.3.1995, whereby only six candidates have been given appointments and out of six, four seats have been allotted to candidates of General Category and one was given to OBC category and another to Schedule Caste category. According to the petitioner, the respondents were bound to fill in all the total nine vacancies and were bound to give one post to the candidate of Schedule Tribe in view of the advertisement S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO. 880/96 Kirori Lal vs. The State of Raj. & anr. and since the petitioner is candidate at S.No.1 in the select list in the category of member of Schedule Tribe, therefore, he is entitled to the appointment.
(2.) The respondents' contention is that inadvertently 9 posts were advertised whereas in fact there were only 6 vacancies in existence. It is submitted that 4 appointments were given in the year 1993-94 covering upto point 4 of 100 point roster. Therefore, in fact total vacancies available in the year 1994-95 were 6 only and by these 6 vacancies, 6 posts from point 5 to point 10 could have been filled in. Upto point 10 from point 5, as per the roster Annexture R/1, there was no vacancy available for the member of Schedule Trible. It is submitted that the number of vacancies given in the advertisement Annexure-1 dated 1.4.1994 as 9, is wrong. It is submitted that the respondents when found the mistake, then adhered to the rules and gave appointments to only 6 persons and that too in accordance with 100 point roster and since from point 5 to point 10, no vacancy of member of Schedule Trible was available, therefore, the petitioner was not given S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO. 880/96 Kirori Lal vs. The State of Raj. & anr. appointment.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents if have published nine vacancies then there was legitimate expectation of the petitioner and because of the mistake committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.;