Honble PRASAD, J.–The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking appointment as Lower Division Clerks pursuant to an advertisement issued by District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated 10.05.2001. By the said advertisement, applications were invited. After scrutiny of applications, competitive examinations were held and it is claimed that the petitioners were declared successful. Having been declared as successful, petitioners were entitled to face type test which was also conducted and a list of selected candidates was prepared.

(2). In the notification dated 10.05.2001 it was stated that there are six posts of LDCs vacant and in future, some vacancies are anticipated to occur. In the notification, this was also stated that out of these posts which have been advertised, three posts are reserved for Scheduled Caste and three for Scheduled Tribes. This was also stated that the posts may be filled up from other methods viz, promotions from IV th class and by transfer etc. A panel will be prepared of the successful candidates which will to be effective for one year.

(3). According to the petitioners, after declaration of select list on 30.10.2001, they kept waiting for the appointment order against the existing and anticipated vacancies. Petitioners claim that vide Annex.3, petitioners were called to appear before ADJ (Fast Track), Pratapgarh with their testimonials because the vacancies were likely to be filled up. Petitioners have placed reliance on Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Service Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1986) which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-

``15. Frequency of Examinations : Early in each year or as the circumstances may require each District Judgeship shall recruit as many candidates for his Judgeship as required for the vacancies likely to arise in the course of the year.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the District Judge of the Judgeship is required to recruit as many candidates as required for the vacancies likely to arise in the course of the year. In terms of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1986, the District Judge is required to determine all existing and anticipated vacancies every year and in this way it is claimed that the anticipated vacancies were 25 and therefore, a select list so declared was required to remain in currency of one year from the date of notification i.e. 30.10.2001. Such is the provision provided in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1986. The same is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-

``19. Registration of selected candidates :-

(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Provided that . . . . . . . .

Note-(1) . . . . . . . . .

(2) . . . . . . . . . . .

(3) If any such candidate has not been given an appointment offer in strict order of seniority according to the list in the bound register prescribed under rule (1) within one year from the date of declaration of the result of his recruitment test, his name shall be automatically removed from the register of recruited candidates. He must then take his chance with others for recruitment again in subsequent year.

(4). While process of selection was continuing, a writ petition was filed before this Court being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 955/02, ``Pappu Lal vs. State (1), wherein, validity of selections which were made for the recruitment of LDCs in Pratapgarh judgeship were challenged. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Honble Court on 26.07.02 and it was observed in the decision that there was no reason for not completing the selection process expeditiously. The petitioners have further averred that while the writ petition was pending, a notification was issued by the respondent on 15.07.2002 inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the existing 23 vacancies in Pratapgarh judgeship. According to the petitioners, these 23 vacancies were same which were shown as anticipated vacancies in advertisement Anne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document