Honble GUPTA, J.–Pursuant to the advertisement no. 1/96 dt. 14.2.96 issued by the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad, Bikaner (respondent no.2), the petitioners had applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III. The number of the vacancies advertised was 220, but was increased to 330 afterwards. It has been averred in the writ petition that the positions of the petitioners in merit list were between 9 to 203 and they were called for the interviews on the basis of their merit but the appointments have not been given to them.

(2). The petitioners case is that the appointments have been withheld on account of the order dated 17.5.97 issued by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department containing directions for keeping in view the Government Circular dt. 9.12.96 while filling up the vacancies reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. It has been averred that the vacancies are required to be determined as on the 1st of Jan. and the circular dt. 9.12.96 could not be made applicable in respect of the vacancies advertised on 14.2.96, and as such, there could not be carrying forward of the vacancies reserved for the O.B.Cs. It has been stated that if appointments were given following the circular dt. 9.12.96 the petitioners will be deprived of the appointment as the vacancies which occurred prior to 1996 for the O.B.Cs. will be carried forward. It has been prayed that the Court declares that the principle of carry forward of the vacancies for the O.B.Cs. will be effective only after 9.12.96. It has been further prayed that if the appointments are not made before 30.6.97 the court directs that the list will not lapse by the efflux of time.

(3). In the return filed by the respondents no.1 and 2, it has been averred that the writ petition is premature as selections in pursuance of the advertisement no. 1/96 have still not been completed and no select list has been prepared and published. It has been further averred that a provisional merit list was prepared on the basis of the information supplied by the candidates themselves and the merit shown in the schedule annexed to the writ petition in respect of various petitioners, is not correct. It has been stated that the State Government vide order dt. 26.5.95 had clarified the position regarding the backlog of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and O.B.Cs. in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the R.K. Sabarwals case, and therefore, the vacancies could be filled up only on the basis of the circular dt. 26.5.95 Anx. R.1. It has been emphasized that the directions of carrying forward the vacancies had come into existence from 10.2.95 by the pronouncement of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of `R.K. Sabarwals and the Government had also issued instructions on 26.5.95.

(4). In their reply respondents no. 3 to 9, who are members of the O.B.Cs. have stated that in view of the judgment of the R.K. Sabarwals case the appointing authorities are obliged to have appointment to the members of the O.B.C.. on the posts reserved for them.

(5). In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it has been averred that in the meeting of the District Establishment Committee held on 2.4.97 a decision was taken to fill up 330 posts and out of them 14 posts were reserved for the O.B.Cs. In that meeting, it was also decided that the backlog of 47 posts of the O.B.C. should be filled up and thus the petitioners have reasonable apprehension that the respondents will resort to give appointments to the O.B.C. candidates on the carried forward vacancies.

(6). Mr. Mridul, learned Sr. Advocate contended that under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 (for short the Rules of 1959) the vacancies were required to be determined as on 1st Jan, 1996 and therefore the circular issued after 1st of Jan. providing for carrying forward of the vacancies for the O.B.C. category candidates is not applicable, in the appoi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document