Important Point
Posts of Assistant Directors (Junior) in Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Service got abolished and substituted by the newly created posts of Marketing Officers as per the amendment to the Service Rules of 1986 pursuant to notification dated 19.4.95 and 26.4.95. Thus, old Advertisement Annexure P1 ceased on issuance of new advertisement Annex. P4. Thus, no fault can be found with the fresh process of recruitment initiated by Rajasthan Public Service Commission pursuant to advertisement Annexure P4.

Headnote:Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Service Rules, 1986-Advertisement dated 5.11.1993 (Annex. P-1) inviting applications for 23 posts of Asstt. Director (Junior)-Later Service Rules amended in 1995-Old advertisement cancelled-New advertisement dated 8.1.1996 (Annex. P-4) issued for filling 26 posts of Marketing Officers-Whether old posts abolished and were substituted by new posts? (Yes)-Effect-The earlier Advertisement P-1 does not survive after the 1995 amendment and no fault can be found in the new process of recruitment initiated by Second Advertisement P-4-DB of High Court was thus wrong and Single Judge was right-Appeal allowed.
       Held that on account of the amendments to the Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Service Rules the earlier advertisement dated 05th November 1993 had become infructuous and otios. Only on this short ground the writ petition of the respondent-writ petitioner should have been dismissed by confirming the order of dismissal of the writ petition earlier passed by the learned Single Judge. (Para 15)
       Despite this clear case made out by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission before the Division Bench of the High Court and despite the fact that the said case clearly borne out from the statutory rules as amended in April 1995 the High Court in the impugned judgment has taken the view that the posts of Assistant Directors (Junior) appear to have been re-designated as Marketing Officers meaning thereby there was only change of nomenclature. It is difficult to appreciate this line of reasoning. Not only the posts of Assistant Directors (Junior) got abolished and substituted by new posts of Marketing Officers but it is the new post of Marketing Officer which became the feeder post for 100 promotion from the said newly created post to the post of Assistant Director which also was a newly created post in the place of the erstwhile post of Assistant Director (Senior). It must, therefore, be held that the earlier advertisement of 05th November 1993 Annexure P-1 became infructuous and could not be relied upon for sustaining any further process of recruitment pursuant to the said infructuous advertisement seeking to recruit persons to posts which no longer existed in Rajasthan State Marketing Service after April 1995. The first point, therefore, will have to be answered in the affirmative in favour of the appellants and against the respondent-writ petitioner. (Para 16)
       It is true that old vacancies were carried forward and got merged along with three more vacancies and became 26 vacancies for the newly created posts of Marketing Officers, but that does not mean that still the earlier 23 vacancies remained existing under the Rules for appointing eligible persons to the 23 erstwhile vacant posts of Assistant Directors (Junior). (Para 17)
       No fault could be found with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in issuing fresh advertisement dated 08th January 1996 for recruiting eligible candidates from open market for filling up 26 posts in the newly created cadre of Marketing Officers under the Rules as amended in 1995. (Para 21)
       Held finally that the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge and was erroneously allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment. (Para 22)
       In the result these appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of the Division Bench are set aside and instead the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of respondent-writ petitioner is confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. (Para 23)

Judgment

S.B. Majumdar, J.-Leave granted in all these Special Leave Petitions.

2. By consent of learned advocates appearing for the contesting parties all these appeals were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appellants in these appeals are aggrieved by the judgment and order rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 508 of 1996. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the original writ petitioner-common respondent No. 1 in these appeals whose writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge at admittance stage. As a result of the decision of the Division Bench the Civil Special Appeal was allowed and the appellant-State of Rajasthan in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18511 of 1997 and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer being appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9698 of 1997, were directed to proceed with the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement-Annexure P-1, for making appointments to the posts of Assistant Directors (Junior), redesignated as Marketing Officers. Appellants in appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16267 of 1997 are candidates who appeared at the screening test conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission pursuant to a second advertisement which was impugned by respondent No. 1 in his writ petition.

4. In order to appreciate the common grievance of the appellants against the very same judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court a few relevant facts will have to be noted at the outset.

Introductory Facts

5. Common respondent No. 1, pursuant to an advertisement dated 05th November 1993 issued by the appellant-Rajasthan Public Service Commission for recruitment to 23 posts of Assistant Directors (Junior), had applied for being considered for one of the advertised posts as a direct recruit. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1, who will hereinafter be referred to as the writ petitioner was already working in the same department and as a departmental candidate he had offered his candidature as a direct recruit for one of the advertised posts. It is also not in dispute between the parties that the said posts were governed by the Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Service Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Service Rules”). The said advertisement dated 05th November 1993, which is Annexure P-1 in the case, was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission pursuant to the requisition dated 01st November 1993 sent by the State of Rajasthan for initiating recruitment process by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for filling up these posts. The last date for inviting applications from eligible candidates, as mentioned in the said advertisement, was 31st December 1993. Three days prior to the said last date the State of Rajasthan by its communication dated 28th December 1993 asked the Rajasthan Public Service Commission not to go ahead with the said recruitment as the relevant rules, pertaining to the recruitment to the posts concerned, were sought to be amended. Result was that after the expiry of the last date for inviting applications from eligible candidates for being considered for appointments to the advertised posts of Assistant Directors (Junior) in the Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Service, the proceedings remained dormant and the State Public Service Commission did not proceed further in the matter. It is not in dispute between the parties that the writ petitioner at the relevant time being eligible for being considered for such selection had, pursuant to the advertisement Annexure P-1, applied in time. On 19th April 1995 the State of Rajasthan got the Service Rules amended in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India whereby the Governor of Rajasthan made requisite amendments to the said R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 273

Cases Referred (7)