Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Narendra Bankawat And Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 19 December, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH
AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11806 / 2017
Anil Choithani S/o Sh. Sewaram Choithani, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 75A, Kanwar Nagar Rajamal Ka Talab, Jaipur -
302002, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Finance,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Department of Treasuries & Accounts Through Director,
Vitt Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Department of Personnel Through Principal Secretary, DoP,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Chairman,
Jaipur Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305001
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9573 / 2017
1. Narendra Bankawat S/o Shri Raju Singh Bankawat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 144, Shri Ji Nagar Dugrgapura, W.N. 14, Jaipur.
2. Ankit Sharma S/o Shri Ram Dayal Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o B-82, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sitaram Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Chatarpura, Post Dantli, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur.
4. Ummed Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 1/63, Gali No. 1, Bhadwasiya Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Treasuries and Accounts (DTA), Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
3. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
----Respondents (3 of 8) [ CW-11806/2017] _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Tiwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jatin Agarwal, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG, for State Mr. MF Baig, Adv., for RPSC Mr. Giriraj Singh Kushwaha, Secretary, RPSC, in person.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order 19/12/2017 Reportable
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these cases were heard on merit yesterday. After hearing for sometime, the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) was directed to remain present today.
2. Today, the Secretary, RPSC is present with the record and he informs through counsel for the RPSC that the Director, Treasury & Accounts had sent requisition to the RPSC on 02/09/2013 wherein the total number of posts of Accountants and Junior Accountants were mentioned as 3630 out of which 139 posts were reserved under the 4% quota for Special Backward Class (SBC) and it was informed that advertisement may be issued for 3491 posts. Separately, the format of requisition was also sent.
3. Accordingly, the RPSC issued an advertisement on (4 of 8) [ CW-11806/2017] 18/09/2013 advertising in all total 3491 posts of Junior Accountant. The bifurcation of 3491 posts was further made vide corrigendum of 31/10/2014 wherein the total number of 3497 posts were mentioned by including 1078 posts for open category and 290 posts for TSP areas. It is noted that while bifurcating the posts, the distribution of posts category-wise was actually made by taking into consideration the original number of posts namely; 3630 and for open category, instead of 1603 posts, 1539 posts were advertised which came to only 47% of all the total number of posts. At the same time, 12%, 16% and 21% of the total 3630 posts was reserved for SC, ST & OBC. The result was declared category-wise on 17/05/2017 which did not include 133 posts which were originally reserved for SBC category upto 4%. Result was declard on 17/05/2017. However, 1% posts of SBC, which had been advertised in the corrigendum dated 31/10/2014, were later on shifted to open category by issuing a corrigendum on 05/06/2017 after declaration of the result and thus 33 posts were added in the open category.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that on account of originally inclusion of 133 posts and bifurcation of posts in various categories accordingly, the number of posts, which were required to go in the quota of open category, was 1603 posts but the same have been reduced, resulting in total percentage of quota of open category reduced to 47% instead of 51%. At the same time, so far as SC/ST/OBC candidates are concerned, they were allotted their original quota of number of posts. Thus, there has been an (5 of 8) [ CW-11806/2017] imbalance in the total number of reservation vis-a-vis open category and the reservation quota has gone up more than 50% which goes contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Captain Guruvinder Singh (Retired) Vs. State of Rajasthan:
(2011) WLC 586 and as held by the Supreme Court to be followed by its interim order dated 09/05/2017.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the letter issued by the State Government, which they have received under Right to Information Act, note dated 26/05/2017 whereby the State Government, realizing the aforesaid, asked the RPSC to fill up 133 more posts from open category by issuing a corrigendum on 29/05/2017. In the letter dated 29/05/2017, addressed to the Secretary, RPSC, reasons were mentioned for increasing the total number of posts as originally requisitioned. However, the RPSC has refused to send additional list pointing out the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 which read as under:-
"Rule.17. Inviting of applications- application for direct recruitment to the post in the service shall be invited by the Commission advertising the vacancies to be filled in, in the office gazette or in such other manner, as may be deemed fit:
Provided that while selecting the candidates for the vacancies so advertised, the Commission may, if intimation of additional requirement not exceeding 50% of the advertised vacancies is received by them before the selection also select suitable persons to meet such additional requirement."
(6 of 8) [ CW-11806/2017]
6. In view thereof, the RPSC sent information/intimation on 31/05/2017 informing the State Government that no increase of number of posts can been done after the result is declared and such number of posts, which have been increased after result is declared, cannot be added for the purpose of recruitment under the advertisement.
7. Learned counsel for the RPSC also informs that in terms of the letter dated 31/05/2017, the State Government has reverted back and sent the original requisition as it is on 02/06/2017. Thus, the RPSC is unable to send any further names in view of the requisition dated 02/06/2017 which is identical to the corrigendum issued by the RPSC dated 05/06/2017.
8. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court, after perusal of record of RPSC, finds that the number of posts, which had been originally informed for selection to the RPSC were 3630 as informed vide letter dated 02/09/2013 to the Secretary, RPSC. Thus, 133 posts were those which had been originally reserved under 4% quota and cannot be said to be additional new posts which have been created and requisitioned after the advertisement and result was declared as alleged in the letter sent by the RPSC dated 31/05/2017. Therefore, it was not in accordance with Rules. The Rule 17 of the Rules of 1963, as quoted above, does not allow new posts to be added after selection is over. However, if in the original advertisement itself the posts are kept apart and the quota is reserved for filling up in (7 of 8) [ CW-11806/2017] future, the same has to be necessarily filled from the same advertisement and cannot be said to be new posts after selection. They have to be filled from the candidates who have been found selected and placed in merit under the said advertisement. The said number of 133 posts were thus intrinsic to the advertisement originally issued by the RPSC which was having knowledge of 133 posts kept reserved for SBC quota under 4% category. It is for this reason alone that bifurcation of posts to SC/ST/OBC was in accordance with original number of posts i.e. 3630 and not after reducing 133 posts and after deleting 290 TSP posts reservation of 3207 posts was bifurcated by reducing the open category to only 47% keeping 12%, 16% and 21% quota intact.
9. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the bar contained under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1963 for not filling up 133 posts from open category would not apply and the RPSC is now directed to send the recommendations to the State Government as per the requisition dated 29/05/2017 ignoring the subsequent requisition dated 02/06/2017 and fill up the remaining 4% open category posts from the candidates which are found in merit from open category alone. If any revised cut-off marks are found to be required to be published, the same will also be published and revised result accordingly shall be declared keeping in view the mandate of the Constitution of maintaining quota of reservation as less than 50% as directed by the Supreme Court vide its interim order. The State Government will act accordingly and the recommendations shall be sent within a period of three months by (8 of 8) [ CW-11806/2017] the RPSC to the State Government and the State Government shall make appointment on the same within six months thereafter.
10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, both the writ petitions stand allowed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J. Raghu/332-333