The state has the authority to frame eligibility criteria for public posts and adopt appropriate modes for judging suitability, as long as they are rational and have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Article 320(3) of the Constitution is recommendatory and the proviso to the article allows the President or Governor to make regulations specifying matters in which consultation with the Public Service Commission is not necessary.

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This writ petition challenges an amendment to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, by the second Amendment Rules, 2018 (hereafter "the amendment") with effect from 28.6.2018. The amendment inserted a proviso to Rule 19 by which appointment to the post of Pharmacists has to be through merit in a written examination conducted by the Appointing Authority/Board (depending upon the marks obtained by the candidate) in such written examination. The second challenge is to the establishment of the Staff Selection Board by a notification issued on 29.1.2014. That notification brought into force the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board (hereafter "the Board") by a separate set of rules, framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, in 2014. In terms of Rule 8 recruitment to the post of subordinate and ministerial services, notified or specified by the Government has to be made by the Board. For this purpose, the Board is empowered to conduct examinations and hold interviews and other processes.

2. The facts are that the post of Pharmacist was encadered under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules, 1965. For some time recruitment was resorted through written examination conducted by the State. This became the subject matter of certain litigation when in Umesh Singhal Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 311/2014 decided on 5.3.2014) the results of the examination were directed to be re-evaluated. The petitioners urge that faulty preparation of such merit list was in deviation of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 785 which resulted in yet another litigation-Satyendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6656/2015).

3. The petitioners contend that they obtained qualifications to hold the post of Pharmacist long back. However, there was a change in the rule position in November, 2011 after which a recruitment process was issued for the first time in that year and later in 2013. Now in 2018, when a third time selection process has been undertaken i.e. after a time lag of almost five years, it is the Board was constituted through the Rules of 2014 which is to conduct examinations and hold interviews.

4. The petitioner complains that the Board was no doubt established by virtue of Rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India; however, that cannot over-ride the constitutional mandate of Article 320(3) which provides that in matters of recruitment the State Public Service Commission has to be consulted. It is submitted in this regard that the constitution of the Board through the Rules of 2014 violates the constitutional mandate and even is a blatant attempt to sidestep public appointments to civil posts and services under the state, through a constitutionally mandated procedure. Therefore, the setting up of the Board and conduct of recruitment/selection process for filling vacancies in public posts, has to be declared unconstitutional.

5. The other ground of challenge by the petitioners is that the introduction of the written examination as the only mode for determining merit in filling-up of the posts of Pharmacist is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the record of the State of Rajasthan has been dismal with regard to the conduct of written examination and repeatedly matters have reached the Courts; in many cases selections were held to be arbitrary. It is submitted more fundamentally that whilst the State is empowered undoubtedly to adopt the choice of recruiting individuals to posts through appropriate selection process, at the same time the aspirations and expectations of those qualified to hold posts and who have been prevented or deprived from participation in past recruitment process because of the State's inaction or fault, too needs to be borne in mind.

6. Elaborating on t