S.C. AGARWAL, J.—This matter comes up before us on a reference by a learned Single Judge (Bhargava J.). The reference has been made in the following circumstances:

2. The petitioners H.G. Shankar Narayan filed a writ petition in this court on October 19, 1983 wherein he prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 1 to the said writ petition, to make appointments against the vacancies of Additional Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department in the Government of Rajasthan available temporarily on the basis of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (B & R) Rules, 1954. In the said writ petition it was also prayed that the record of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which met in November, 1982 for making selections for the post of Additional Chief Engineer, be called and examined the order dated September 24, 1983 leading to the appointment of Shri R.C. Panchariya and Shri Harbinder Singh, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the writ petition, be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. The aforesaid writ petition was put up for admission before the learned Single Judge on October 27, 1983, on which date the writ petition was admitted. Thereafter on November 14, 1983, an application was moved by Harbinder Singh, respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, for recalling the order dated October, 27, 1983, and for re-hearing the writ petition for the purposes of admis-son on the ground that the said respondent had filed a caveat in this court on Septernber 23, 1983 and that the said writ petition was heard on October 27, 1983 without any notice being given to the said respondent about the filing of the writ petition by the petitioner and about the fixation of the date of hearing in the said writ petition. The said application filed by the respondent No. 3 came up for orders before Bhargava J on November 21, 1983. On behalf of the respondent No. 3 reliance was placed on the judgment of Kudal J. in Hari Ram vs. Ratan Lal (1). The petitioner on the other hand opposed the said application of respondent No. 3 and placed reliance on the judgment of G.M. Lodha J. in Pashupati Nath Arora v. The Registrar Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan Jaipur (2). The learned Single Judge (Bhargava J.), felt that there was conflict between the judgments of two learned Single Judges of this Court in the judgment referred to above and further that Caveats are being filed in most of the cases and such a situation can arise on several occasions and he considered it proper to refer to the division bench for authoritative pronouncement.

3. We have heard Shri M.R. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

4. The first question which arises for our consideration is as to whether a caveat can be entertained in respect of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Shri Caila has submitted that under the Rajasthan High Court Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules"), a separate procedure is laid down in respect of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution other than petitions for writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, in Chapter XXII which falls in Part IV of the Rules and that in the said Chapter no provision has been made with regard to filing of a caveat. The submission of Shri Calla was that Rule 159 of the Rules which makes provision for filing of caveats in civil proceedings has no application to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution because Rule 159 falls in Chapter XI which forms part of Part II relating to Civil Jurisdiction and the said Rule has no application to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the aforesaid contention of Shri Calla cannot be accepted in view of the provisions contained in Rule 123 of the High Court Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 123 lays down that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (I), the Rules contained in Part II shall,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document