SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Raj) 580

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
K.C.Agrawal, C., Inder Sen Israni, JJ.
S.K. Mishra and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 187, 236, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 268, 298, 313 and 314 of 1985.
Decided On : 6-03-1992

For the Petitioner:R.C. Joshi and Ajay Rastogi, Advocates.
For the Petitioner in WP No. 236 of 1985:Paras Kuhad, Advocate.
For the State of Rajasthan:C.K. Garg, Additional Advocate-General.
For the Respondent:S.K. Keshote, Paras kuhad, Rajendra Soni, K.S. Rathore, R. Kandwal and R.R.L. Gupta, Advocates.

Candidates in a reserve list for government appointments do not have a legal right to claim appointment merely based on their inclusion in the list. The government has the discretion to keep posts vacant and candidates have no right to claim appointments against unfilled vacancies.

Headnote:

RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (RPSC) - APPOINTMENT OF STATISTICAL OFFICERS - PROMOTION VS DIRECT RECRUITMENT - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - RIGHTS OF CANDIDATES IN RESERVE LIST - LEGALITY OF AD HOC APPOINTMENTS.

Fact of the Case:

Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging the filling of thirteen Statistical Officer positions through ad hoc promotions, while a reserve list of candidates selected through direct recruitment existed. Petitioners from the reserve list sought appointments, while ad hoc appointees argued for their continued employment and selection through the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

Finding of the Court:

The court held that candidates in the reserve list had no legal right to claim appointment merely based on their inclusion in the list. The government had the discretion to keep posts vacant and candidates had no right to claim appointments against unfilled vacancies. The court also found that the government had the power to transpose vacancies between promotion and direct recruitment quotas in consultation with the RPSC, but could not stop promotions to fill up seats previously filled by direct recruitment.

Issues: 1. Whether candidates in the reserve list have a legal right to claim appointment based solely on their inclusion in the list? 2. Whether the government can stop promotions to fill up seats previously filled by direct recruitment? 3. Whether ad hoc appointments made due to exigencies of administration can be regularized through subsequent DPC selection?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the relevant rules and found that candidates in the reserve list had no vested right to appointment. The government had the discretion to keep posts vacant and candidates had no right to claim appointments against unfilled vacancies. 2. The court interpreted the amended Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Economics & Statistical Service Rules, 1958, and found that the government had the power to transpose vacancies between promotion and direct recruitment quotas in consultation with the RPSC. However, the government could not stop promotions to fill up seats previously filled by direct recruitment. 3. The court did not directly address the issue of regularizing ad hoc appointments through subsequent DPC selection, as the petitioners from the reserve list had no legal right to claim appointment in the first place.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the candidates in the reserve list, with no order as to costs. The court also dismissed two other writ petitions where the petitioners did not press their challenge to a specific rule.

JUDGMENT

1. - All the above-mentioned writ petitions have been filed regarding filling-up thirteen seats of Statistical officers, on which some officers are working on ad hoc basis. The petitioners, who appeared for appointments to the posts of Statistical officers as direct recruits and their names were placed in the reserve list, have prayed that they should be given appointment to the post of Statistical officer, on which, promotees, by way of ad hoc appointment are working. The petitioners working as ad hoc appointees, by way of promotion, have prayed that they have subsequently been selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), held in the year, 1989, therefore, they should be allowed to continue on this post and have further prayed that the petitioners, whose names have been shown in the reserve list, have no right to file writ petitions. Therefore, ft will be appropriate to dispose of these petitions by a single order.

2. For the purposes of factual position, reference will be made to Writ Petition No. 187/85.

3. It is submitted by Mr. R.C. Joshi and Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned vvmnsel, who represent such petitioners, who appeared for selection by way of direct recruitment and were also working on the lower posts in the concerned Department, that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) invited applications for direct recruitment to the post of Statistical officer vide its advertisement No. 6/83-84 (Ex.1). They appeared in the written test and were called for interview on August 18, 1984. The RPSC, vide Ex.2 dated August 21, 1984, issued a list of twenty candidates who were selected and their names were recommended to the Government for appointment on the post of Satistical officer. These persons have been appointed on the said post by the Government of Rajasthan vide order dated January 19, 1985 (Ex.4). Another list (Ex.2A) of the same date was issued, which consisted of ten names, which were kept by the RPSC in the reserve list and the same was to be sent to-the Government, if a requisition was received within a period of six months, as laid down in proviso to Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Economics & Statistical Service Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules, 1958'), it is further submitted that the petitioners, whose names have been included in the reserve list, were not appointed, since the persons appointed on urgent/temporary/ad hoc basis, by way of promotion, against the vacancies of direct recruitment quota, resisted these appointments. It is also submitted that prior to amendment in the Rules, 1958 as provided under Sub-rule (b) of Rule 8, vacancies for the post of Statistical officer occurring in a year were required to be filled up by promotion from amongst Statistical Assistants by selection through RPSC in the proportion of 1:2, i.e. 33 per cent by promotion and 67 per cent by direct recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 provided that if the Selection Committee is satisfied that in a particular year suitable persons are not available for appointment by promotion, the vacancies existing in that year may be filled up by selection. This sub-clause was amended by notification dated May 27, 1983 and it was provided that If the Government is satisfied in consultation with RPSC that suitable persons are not available for appointment by either method of recruitment in a particular year, the appointment by other method in relaxation of the prescribed proportion, may be made in the same manner as specified in that rule. By further amendment vide Notification dated October 17, 1984, the proportion 1:2 was changed to 1:1 and, thus, 50 per cent appointments were required to be made by promotion and fifty per cent by direct recruitment. This amendment was given retrospective effect w.e.f. April 1, 1981 (Ex.5). It is also submitted that after 1976-77, no appointments by direct recruitment were made on the post of Statistical officer, even though vacancies have been advertised through RPSC. No. DPC was held even for acc












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top