S. S. BY AS, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was serving in Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Kray Vikraya Sangh Ltd. Shri Karanpur; Notification inviting applications for the appointment on the posts of Quality Inspector were invited vide (Annexure -1 ). THE minimum qualification for the above mentioned post was degree in agriculture. THE minimum experience needed as per notification was in State or National level marketing society. It was also stated in the said notification, that the candidate should furnish his mark-list and he should also give the percentage of marks obtained by him. THE petitioner was invited for interview on 2nd July, 1986, with other persons. Respondent No. 3, namely Ranveer Singh and respondent No. 4. Shri Vijay Singh were selected by the selection committee, and the appointment order (Annexure-3), dated 23rd August, 1-986, was issued in their favour. THE petitioner submitted that respondent No. 3 and 4 were not qualified for the said appointment as such their appointment order (Annexure-3) must be quashed and the petitioner should be appointed on the said post of Quality Inspector, and he should be deemed to have been appointed with effect from 26th August, 1986
(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, a reply was filed and it was admitted by them that the applications were invited vide (Annexure-1), which was published in the news-paper 'nav Bharat Times' dated 28th February, 1986. It was also admitted that ordinarily as per notification the application should have been received upto 14th March, 1986. It was also submitted that the application of the petitioner was received in the office of the respondent No. 1, on 20th March, 1986 much after the prescribed time. The respondent has submitted (Annexure Rl/1), the photo-stat copy of the application which was submitted by the petitioner with a forwarding note. There is a receipt of a receipt register. The forwarding letters bears the seal of the receipt register. It was also submitted that initially it was decided to appoint 6 Quality Inspector, on deputation from Rajasthan State Ware-housing Corporation. The respondents have submitted the copy of the requisition letter, which was submitted by them which is marked as (Ex. R1/2 ). It was also submitted that soon after the notification, the price of mustered seed went up and it was felt that there was no necessity to purchase the mustered seed at support price and therefore, proposal to take Quality Inspector, on deputation was dropped. It was also submitted that the posts of Quality Inspector were reduced from 6 to 2. It was also submitted that the condition relating to the experience was relaxed in favour of all the persons who were called for the interview, as such had the requiste experence. It was also submitted that the petitioner was not having the requiste experience. It was also submitted by the respondents that the application of Mr. Vijay Singh, respondents No. 4, was received on 12th March, 1986 i. e. prior to the date advertised. The copy of which is marked as (Annexure-Rl/5 ). The petitioner passed the examination in IIIrd Division and he has produced (Annexure-4), whereas the respondent No. 4, Mr. Vijay Singh, has passed the examination in IInd Division and obtained 57% marks. Thus, on merit according to respondents respondent No 4, Vijay Singh, was on the better footings. It was also submitted that the application of respondent No. 3, Mr. Ranveer Singh, was received on 20th September, 1986, thus, is was received at a delayed stage and in the matter of condonation of delay, the petitioner and respondent No. 3, Ranveer Singh, stand on the same footing. The delayed submission of the application of the petitioner was also condoned like others. As such the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the matter of other respondents. It was also submitted that the petitioner was a IIIrd Dn. whereas Ranveer Singh, secured 590,5% marks Respondent No. 3, Ranveer Singh, missed his 1st Dn. only by less than 1% marks. Thus, as far as the education qualification is concerned, it was submitted that both the selected persons stand on higher footings on account of higher percentage of marks obtained in the examination. The persons similarly situated have a right to be considered no one claim the right of appointment. The petitioner was called for interview and the application of 15 persons are considered. The applications which were receieved late were condoned and the benefit has been extended in favour to the petitioner. The condition of experience was also relaxed in favour of other persons including the petitioner. The petitioner was also not having the requisite experience and he could be called for interview only because of relexation. The experience gained in primary society namely the Marketing Society, Karanpur, was not at part to the experience notified in advertisement". On behalf of the petitioner, rejoinder was also filed. He submitted that the application was submitted on 8. 3. 1986, before the society which was forwarded on 10th March, 1986. It was also submitted that the petitioner's application was delivered on 14th March, 1986, by one Santokh Singh, and the affidavit of Santokh Singh, in respect of his contention marked as (Ex.-9 ). The petitioner has also submitted that in the letter (Annexure-2), a reference has been made about the date of application which is 14th March, 1986. We have heard the rival contentions made by learned, counsel for both the parties. The authorities and the selection committee, have the right to relax the condition in case the suitable candidates are not available or the number of applications received are not within time. The case of the respondent is that the time has been extended also in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was having only 46% marks whereas the other persons were having 57% and 59% marks. It was also the admitted position that if it requisite experience is not relaxed, then the petitioner was also not entitled for appointment or for a call for interview. The condition was relaxed in favour of the petitioner and others. The petitioner was interviewed with other 14 persons and after interview two persons were selected who have obtained higher percentage of marks. The selection cannot be said to bad particularly, when the petitioner's case for the appointment was considered and he was called for interview. The authorities, can reduce the number of vacancies if for any sufficient reason and it was considered necessary not to fill-up the same. The redaction of vacancies from 6 to 2 is within the power of the appointing authority and they can say that it is not advisable to fill-up all vacancies at present. During the course of arguments, we enquire whether any other persons have been appointed and we were informed that no any other persons have been appointed so far. The appointment letters were issued in the year 1986 and the persons are working since then. The very fact is that the un-fill vacancies are continued though there is a sanction strength goes to show that there is no necessity of additional staff. Mr. J. K. Singhi, learned counsel for the non-petitioners, has also referred the bye-laws and it was submitted by him that the necessary approval for the creation of the posts was not received from the government. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the matter of the appointment of respondent No. 3 and 4. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. . ;