Honble M.R. CALLA, J.—These three cases involve common questions of law and facts and hence we propose to decide all these three cases by this common judgment.

2. The facts of these cases present a typical lis between the in-serving Engineers seeking appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment and the Engineer graduates in the open market who are also seeking appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment. This lis between the candidates of two different types both seeking direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers has engaged the attention of this Court because of the dismal fact that although the scheme of the Rules, namely, the Rajasthan Service Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to the Rules of 1954) provides for both the modes of recruitment on the post of Assistant Engineer i.e. by direct recruitment as well as promotion, there has been no direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Engineer in this service since 1983 and, therefore, the in-service Engineers who are holders of the post of Junior/Engineers/Sub-Engineers and who have been working against the post of the Assistant Engineers by way of what is called as working arrangement or otherwise could not be considered against the vacancies of various years on year-wise basis from 1983 on wards and now the direct recruitment is being held against the clubbed vacancies of all these years for which the fresh Engineering graduates available now in the open market who may have acquired the eligibility later than 1983 or even recently have also entered the race against the in-service candidates for the purpose of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer. Thus whether the selection and appointments even by direct recruitment are required to be held on year-wise basis keeping the consideration confined to only those candidates who were eligible for such direct recruitment in the particular earlier year only and as to whether the direct recruitment against the vacancies of a particular earlier year should be kept confined to only those who were so eligible in that particular year to the exclusion of such Engineering graduates who did not possess the eligibility in that particular year; as to whether the requirement of eligibility for direct recruitment as were in force in the particular year should only be applied for the purpose of vacancies of that year, as to whether the vacancies of various earliest years in which the direct recruitment was not held can be allowed to be clubbed or not on the premise that r. 9 of the Rules of 1954 is mandatory or directory, as to whether the selection through direct recruitment can be allowed to be held solely on the basis of interviews and as to whether r. 20 of the aforesaid Rules of 1954 is valid or not are the pivotal question on which the adjudication of these cases hinges.

3. In 2 of the three cases before us the Association in the name of Rajasthan Council of Diploma Holders and Association of Graduate Engineers have come to challenge the selections seeking to protect the interest of their respective members who are already in service as Junior Engineers/Sub Engineers or Engineering subordinates and in the third case, the three petitioners who are Engineering Graduates of 1979 and 1980 who were appointed as Junior Engineers and claims to have been working as Assistant Engineers under order dated 21.12.87 and 7.3.88 have challenged the selections through direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineers against the vacancies of the year 1983 and on wards.

4. The case of the petitioners is that a notice inviting applications was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through Advertise- ment No.11 of 89-90 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) against 1 !5 vacancies in the Public Works Department of the Government of Rajasthan & 7 vacancies of Assistant Engineers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document