1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have called in question the method of selection adopted by respondent No.3. The following relief is prayed for :

“The petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and thereby issuing a writ/mandamus thereby quashing the Advertisement No.02/Selection/2012 OR respondents may kindly be directed to the respondents to conduct the written examination for the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and prepare the merit list accordingly. To pass such other further order(s) deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. Costs may also be awarded.”

2. Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that initial advertisement for recruitment for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon was issued vide advertisement, Annexure P-1. However, subsequently this advertisement was amended by issuing a corrigendum on 31.12.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing the attention of this Court submits that total number of the posts of Vaterinary Assistant Surgeon was declared as 525. Bifurcation of the vacancies in the said advertisement is as under :

in dk uke dqy fjfDr;ksa dh oxZokj la[;k fjfDr;ksa esa ls oxZokj e/;izns’k dh ewy

in fuoklh efgykvksa ds fy, vkjf{kr in

vuk vuq- vuq- v-fi-o- vuk vuq- vuq- v-fi-o-

i’kq fpfdRlk 525 139 110 241 35 41 33 71 11

lgk;d ‘kY;K ¼75 cSd ykWx½ ¼75 cSd ykWx½

3. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that admittedly 75 vacancies in SC and 198 vacancies in ST are admittedly backlog vacancies. Even vacancies are clubbed together with the general category vacancies and thereafter total number of vacancies are determined as 525. By placing reliance on M.P. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter called as “Adhiniyam”), learned counsel submits that section 2(h) defines “Recruitment Year”. By taking this Court to section 4(3)(b) and (c) Shri Anil Sharma submits that the unfilled backlog vacancies can very well be carried forward but it cannot be filled along with the vacancies of another recruitment year and for that a special drive should have been initiated by the State Government as per mandate of section 4(3)(b) proviso. In addition, it is argued that the respondents have erred in carrying forward and clubbing the vacancies with the vacancies of a different recruitment year and with the general category vacancies.

4. The last submission of attack on the recruitment process is based on the rules of procedure prepared by the M.P.P.S.C. By relying on rule 5(4)(C) it is stated that where the number of applicants exceeds 500 and their number is also more than five times the number of vacancies, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to conduct a written examination whereas they have only conducted an interview which is bad in law. By relying on AIR 1999 SC 2894 (Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others), Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that candidates have passed and acquired qualification from different Universities/educational institutions. Accordingly, the respondents should have followed the procedure of scaling before subjecting them tothe selection conducted by the respondent-PSC. In support of this submission, he relied on a judgment of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court, reported in (2006)8 SCC 212 (M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others), to submit that the carried forward vacancies cannot be clubbed together with the vacancies of a subsequent year and such an action is impermissible in the eye of law.

5. Per contra, Shri R.D. Jain, learned Advocate General and Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.3, supported the action and submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the respondents. Learned Advocate Ge