V.S.KOKJE,J. - (1.) THE appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 410/98 who was a candidate for direct recruitment in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service ('RHJS' for short), and who stood 8th in the merit list of Selection had filed a petition in this Court claiming that she was entitled to be declared selected and be appointed or considered for appointment as, on a correct calculation, the vacancies for direct recruitment in the RHJS in accordance with the applicable rules came to 10 and not 7 and the petitioner being the 8th selected candidate was entitled to appointment against the post. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and this therefore, is an appeal by the appellant - petitioner under Clause 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance.
(2.) AN advertisement dated 31.10.1994 was published by the High Court inviting applications for being considered for appointment in the RHJS against 7 vacancies including the two vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and one vacancy for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe. It was also stipulated in the advertisement that the number of posts could be increased. The recruitment to RHJS is governed by Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules 1969 ('the Rules' for short), as amended from time to time. Rule 6 of the Rules provides for the strength of the service and also provides for varying the strength from time to time. Rule 9 of the Rules provides that the number of persons appointed to the Service by direct recruitment shall at no time exceed one third of the total strength of service. It is also provided that subject to the aforesaid limit every 4th person after three persons appointed by promotion in the Service, has to be a direct recruit. The appellant Veena Verma contends that on a correct application of the aforesaid rules the correct calculation of vacancies comes to 10 and not 7. She, therefore, submits that if the vacancies had been correctly calculated by the High Court she would have been among the 10 selected candidates and, therefore, would have been appointed as a result of the selection.
(3.) THE respondents, on the other hand, contend that the appellant -petitioner had no legal right to maintain a petition for getting herself declared to be selected or appointed. According to the respondents, vacancies had been correctly calculated on a correct interpretation of the rules and the appellant has no right to challenge the calculation of vacancies as she could not compel the respondents to advertise more posts or to appoint more persons than the respondents decided to do.;