The Court held that the amendment to Rule 9 introducing a lottery system for the selection of Safai Karamchari was a valid exercise of legislative power and a reasonable method of selection in the given circumstances.

1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the Notification dated 23rd January, 2014 amending Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 (for short "the Rules of 2012"). The rule aforesaid provides procedure for direct recruitment on the post of Safai Karamchari. A challenge is further made to the advertisement dated 13th April, 2018 to invite applications for the post of Safai Karamchari. The amended rule provides additional method of selection. It is by drawing lottery of the applicants.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents had issued an advertisement on 25th May, 2012 to invite applications for the post of Safai Karamchari. At the relevant time, selection on the post of Safai Karamchari could have been made on the basis of merit, interview, experience and not by way of lottery. The respondents amended Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012 vide impugned Notification dated 23rd January, 2014 so as to add lottery as a method of selection. The procedure aforesaid is illegal and unconstitutional. It is for the reason that lottery system cannot make selection based on merit or taking into consideration the experience. It should otherwise be a primary consideration for selection and appointment of any post which includes the post of Safai Karamchari. In view of the above, if respondents would proceed pursuant to amended provision then merit as well as experience may be sacrificed. The amendment vide Notification dated 23rd January, 2014, thus deserves to be struck down so as the advertisement dated 20th April, 2018 followed by amended advertisement dated 28th April, 2018.

3. It is also stated that even if method of lottery is allowed, there would be no surety of selection without manipulation. At times, while drawing lottery, things are managed to favour one or other candidates thus even the lottery system cannot be said to be a proven system to eliminate voice of arbitrariness or unfairness. Therefore, no purpose remains in applying the procedure of lottery in making selection to the post of Safai Karamchari. The aforesaid aspect was examined by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri B.P. Nagaraju Gowda Vs. The Union of India, Writ Petition No.19633/2014, decided vide order dated 26th August, 2015. The procedure of selection by lottery system has been deprecated. Applying the judgment aforesaid, the Notification dated 23rd January, 2014 may be struck down so as the advertisement subsequently issued on 20th April, 2018 followed by corrigendum dated 28th April, 2018. A prayer is made to allow the writ petition with the aforesaid.

4. Learned counsel for respondents has contested the writ petition. It is submitted that writ petition is not maintainable in the hands of a Co-operative Society when it pertains to individual cause. The copy of Constitution of the Co-operative Society or a resolution to file the writ petition has been submitted. The petitioner has no locus for filing the present writ petition.

5. It is also submitted that Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012 was amended vide Notification dated 23rd January, 2014. It has been challenged after lapse of several years without justifying delay. If, at all, there is justification of delay then also a case is not made out for causing interference in the amended provision. Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012 provides for mode of selection. It can be based on written examination/merit/experience or any or more than one out of it. The addition is by drawing lottery by way of amendment in the rule.

6. The purpose to amend the rule is not only to make the things transparent but to avoid voice of arbitrariness in making selection so as allegation of corruption therein. It can be raised if one of the methods, other than lottery system is applied. As per rule then existing, the appointment could have been given based on the merit. It can be assessed by way of interview or written examination but interview keeps a room of doubt for fair selecti