JUDGMENT 1. - All these writ petitions, particulars of which are given in the Schedule 'A' attached with this order, raise a similar question of law, hence they are decided by a common order. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that an advertisement was published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC)-respondent No.2, on July 23, 1986, by which applications were invited for Combined Competitive Examination, 1986 to fill up the vacancies of LDCs. in the Subordinate offices(888) Government Secretariat (57) and RPSC(21). Alongwith the application forms, "Suchanna Patrika" was also issued, in which it was mentioned that candidates were to mention name of a district, in which they would desire to serve. The result of the examination was declared by the RPSC around April 17, 1989 and it made recommendations to the Government for appointment in the month of July, 1989. However, the mark-sheets were supplied in the month of January, 1990. The petitioner, secured 59.5% marks (Anx. 1). The option given by the petitioner was for Kota. It is further submitted that Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for brevity, 'the Rules, 1957) lays down that the candidate shall be required to state in the application form the names of two Districts or Departments, in which he desires to serve. It further provides that, in case of non-availability of vacancies in the Districts mentioned in the application, the applicant may be posted in any of the Districts of the State. It is pointed out that this Rule was not followed, since only choice of one district was taken from the applicants. 3. It is submitted that several writ petitions were filed by various candidates challenging that the choice of district was wrongly taken from the applicants. It is further submitted that a number of posts in several districts were increased immensely to the detriment of the applicants. For example, in Bikaner district, the posts were increased from 6 to 408; in jaipur district, the posts were increased from 41 to 155. So far as the Subordinate Offices are concerned, the posts were increased to 1882. Therefore the candidates, who had given option for Bikaner district, were selected by obtaining 37.5% marks,'whereas this applicant and hundreds of other applicants, who obtained 59.5% marks or more than 37.5% marks were not given appointments. So far as the Subordinate Offices are concerned, the posts were increased to 1882. Therefore the candidates, who had given option for Bikaner district, were selected by obtaining 37.5% marks,'whereas this applicant and hundreds of other applicants, who obtained 59.5% marks or more than 37.5% marks were not given appointments. The first bunch of writ petitions was decided by the learned Single Judge in the decision of Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (1) RLR 45 . These writ petitions were allowed and it was directed that since all the petitioners who had filed writ petitions, had given second choice for Bikaner district, be considered to be given appointments on the 140 posts still lying unfilled, in order of merit, provided none of them has secured less than 38% marks. Thereafter, large number of applicants filed fresh writ petitions, which were heard and decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sunita Gupta etc. v. State of Raj. & RPSC, 1990 (1) RLR 445 , in which while allowing the writ petitions a direction was issued for giving appointments to all those candidates, who have secured 37.5% or more marks, irrespective of the fact whether they have filed writ petitions or not. Against this decision, the State preferred D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 107/91 (State and another v. Sunita Gupta), which is pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. In this special Appeal, the State informed the Court that 906 posts out of 1882 were lying unfilled since some of the candidates did not join on these post. The Division Bench, therefore, directed on April 10, 1991 that the Government should supply a statement of district-wise and department-wise vacancies to the RPSC and, thereafter the RPSC should invite options from the candidates other than those who have already been given appointment as LDCs. for one more district and after receiving the options, it should prepare a fresh list for those 906 vacancies and forward the same to the Government for making appointments as per list. It is submitted that out of these 906 posts, 337 posts are still lying unfilled, as those given appointments have not joined. 4. for one more district and after receiving the options, it should prepare a fresh list for those 906 vacancies and forward the same to the Government for making appointments as per list. It is submitted that out of these 906 posts, 337 posts are still lying unfilled, as those given appointments have not joined. 4. It is submitted that the candidates, who secured as less as 37.5% marks in Bikaner district, were given appointments, whereas hundreds of candidates, who were more meritorious and secured as high percentage as 67% marks in Jhunjhunu district like petitioner who secured 59.5% marks, would not get appointment since Rules 19, 21 and 24 of the Rules 1957 are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as discrimination has been made on the basis of district wise selection, ignoring the merits of the petitioners. The list of successful candidates is not prepared on the Basis of merit of State-wise, but is prepared on the basis of each district, which results in gross discrimination and meritorious candidates are denied appointments, while those, having no comparative merit, are given appointments. It is pointed out that alongwith the reply filed by the State, Anx. R/1 has been filed, in which a notification dated June 30, 1988, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms has been published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated August 11, 1988. By this notification, sub-rule (1) of Rule 24 of the Rules, 1957 have been amended, which shows that the combined merit list, which was otherwise also prepared for the State as a whole, has been done away with and replaced by preparation of district-wise merit list. 5. It is submitted by Mr. B. P. Agrawal, learned Advocate- General, that, until now, 2598 posts of LDCs. in Subordinate Offices have been filled up and one post could not be filled up as name was not received from the RPSC. It is further submitted that the Rules pointed out by the petitioners are not violative of Articles 14 and 16 and are not discriminatory in any way. It is also submitted that, originally, it was provided in Rule 19 that State-wise merit list will also be prepared for appointments to the posts of LDCs. in Subordinate Offices. It is further submitted that the Rules pointed out by the petitioners are not violative of Articles 14 and 16 and are not discriminatory in any way. It is also submitted that, originally, it was provided in Rule 19 that State-wise merit list will also be prepared for appointments to the posts of LDCs. in Subordinate Offices. Subsequently, by amendment in Rule 19, it was provided that the Competitive Examination shall be held Zone-wise and merit list shall also be prepared Zone-wise & for this purpose, Rajasthan was divided in six zones. However, it was found that several of the successful candidates did not join on the posts, since they were not willing to serve in a particular district, where they were appointed. Therefore, the efficiency of the Government suffered. It was, therefore, deemed appropriate to amend Rule 19 in the existing form vide notification dated February 3, 1986. In the second proviso of the rule, it has been provided that the Competitive Examination for the posts of LDCs. in Subordinate Offices shall be held districtwise by the RPSC. This, according to the learned counsel, is a matter of policy, which has been formulated by the Government of Rajasthan, after carefully considering the pros and cons of the same. The District-wise selection has, thus, nexus with the object to be achieved,as stated above. 6. We have heard all the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on record. It may be pointed out that before the Competitive Examination, for filling up the vacancies, is held by the RPSC, it will be necessary for the State to determine the same. It will, therefore, be appropriate before we proceed further, to extract the relevant Rules. Clause (a) of Rule 4 defines "Appointing Authority", the relevant portion of which reads as under : "4(a) "Appointing Authority" means the Head of Department or, to the extent the authority is delegated to him, such officer, to whom the authority to make appointments to the staff may be delegated by the Head of Department with the approval of Government." Rule 9 is regarding determination of vacancies. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: "9. (1)(a) Subject to the provision of these Rules, the Appointing Authority shall determine on 1st April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: "9. (1)(a) Subject to the provision of these Rules, the Appointing Authority shall determine on 1st April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. (2) The Appointing authority shall also determine the vacancies of earlier years year-wise which were required to be filled in by promotion, if such vacancies were not determined and filled earlier in the year in which they were required to be filled in." Rule 19 is regarding Frequency of examination, which reads as under:- "19. Frequency of examination. -The Competitive Examination as prescribed in rule 7, shall be held every year on such dates and at such places as the Commission may order without waiting for the requisition from the Government unless intimation to the contrary is received from it: Provided that the Commission may hold the combined competitive examination for the vacancies of Lower Division Clerks under these rules and also under the provisions of the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970. A candidate would be entitled to apply for the vacancies in the Secretariat as well as in subordinate Offices for which there shall be only one application form for Lower Division Clerks Combined competitive Examination and the candidate shall mention his choice for either Lower Division Clerk (Secretariat) or Lower Division Clerk (Subordinate Offices) in the application form. Only one examination fee will be payable by the candidate for such Combined Competitive Examination. The commission shall prepare two lists of such successful candidates. One list shall be in accordance with rule 22 of the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970 and the other list shall be under rule 34 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957: Provided further that the competitive examination for the posts of Lower Division Clerks in the Subordinate Offices shall be held District-wise by the Commission." Rule 21 relates to inviting of applications and relevant portion of the same reads as under : "21. Inviting of applications - The applications to sit in the examination either competition or qualifying examination for LDCs. Inviting of applications - The applications to sit in the examination either competition or qualifying examination for LDCs. and Steno-graphers shall be invited by the Commission by advertising the posts in such manner, as they may deem fit, and shall be made in such form as they may approve : Provided that in case of competitive examination for the post of LDC, candidate shall be required to state in the application form the name of 2 Districts or Departments in which he desires to serve. But in case of non-availability of vacancies to the Districts of his desire he may be posted in any of the District of the State.Rule 24 regarding selection and relevant portion of clause (1) reads as under:- "24. Selection:-(1) The Commission shall prepare merit lists "District-Wise" of the candidates declared successful according to the minimum qualifying marks obtained by them in the Lower Division Clerks examination." 7. A bare perusel of the relevant portions of the Rules extracted above, shows that clause (a) of Rule 4 lays down that "Appointing authority" shall mean Head of the Department or such Officer to whom the Authority is delegated. Under Rule 9, every such Appointing Authority will determine on 1st April every year the actual number of vacancies occurring during that financial year as also such vacancies, which were not determined and filled earlier in the year, in which they were required to be filled in. Thus, this exercise of determination of vacancies is carried on a state level. Rule 19 provides that the Commission may hold the combined Competitive Examination for vacancies of LDCs. Under Rules, 1957 as also under the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970 (for brevity, 'the Rules, 1970'). So far such candidates, who want to appear under the Rules, 1970 for the posts of LDCs. are concerned, they know it fully well that they will be appointed in Secretariat, Jaipur, even though they may be belonging to any District of Rajasthan. Similarly, persons are appointed in the Office of the RPSC at Ajmer and such persons, who are selected for appointments on the posts of LDCs, know it well that they will be posted at Ajmer in the Office of the RPSC, irrespective of the fact as to which district they belong in the Rajasthan. It is only in respect of the LDCs. It is only in respect of the LDCs. appointed in accordance with the Rules, 1957 that it is felt by the State that these candidates who belong to various districts, will not be willing to join, if they are posted at such a district, for which they have not opted to be posted. Therefore, the Competitive Examination is held District-wise and the merit list is also prepared District-wise. However, this policy of the State does not seem to have any cogent reasons for change to prepare District-wise merit list, where the appointments are to be held under the Rules, 1957 in various Subordinate offices in the State of Rajasthan. 8. It may be pointed out that as is evident from notification dated June 3, 1988, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Anx. R/1) that, earlier, a combined merit list for State as a whole was also prepared. Before Rule 19 of the Rules, 1957 was amended by notification dated February 3, 1986, the Competitive Examination for the posts of LDCs. in the Subordinate Offices was held zone-wise by the RPSC and the Rajasthan was divided in six zones, for this purpose. By the amendment, vide notification mentioned above, the Competitive Examination is now held District-wise by the RPSC. In Rule 24, vide notification dated February 3, 1986 the merit list is to be prepared District-wise, instead of Zone-wise, as was provided before the amendment. By another amendment vide notification dated June 30, 1988, the words "as also a combined merit list for the State as a Whole" were also deleted. As pointed out by the learned counsel representing the petitioners, this holding of the Competitive Examination District-wise and preparation of the merit list District-wise has resulted in gross injustice to scores of meritorious students. As an example, it was pointed out that all candidates, who had opted of District Bikaner, were selected and given appointments, even though some of them had secured as low marks as 37.5%, whereas several candidates in other districts, who secured as much as 59% or more marks, could not get appointments in several other districts. This shows that holding of Competitive Examination District-wise results in such an namely by which less meritorious candidates get appointments, where as more meritorious are left out, merely because they did not opt for a particular district. This shows that holding of Competitive Examination District-wise results in such an namely by which less meritorious candidates get appointments, where as more meritorious are left out, merely because they did not opt for a particular district. The whole purpose of the competition is to select meritorious candidates for appointments, so that the work of the State may be carried on efficiently. However, as is evident, on account of the district-wise merit policy adopted by the State, the result is that meritorious candidates are left out and less meritorious are able to secure appointments. 9. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that District-wise competition and preparation of merit list has been provided with a view to see that those selected, join on the posts and the work of the State is carried on efficiently. According to the respondents, if the State-wise competition is held and the merit list is also prepared at State level, several candidates may not join, since many of them do not like to move out of their districts, where they are residing. This therefore, results in large number of vacancies being unfilled and holding of the Competitive Examination becomes more or less an exercise in futile. This court required information, which has been given by the State. This shows that, even under the present policy of the District-wise merit, out of 2598 posts, for which appointment orders were issued, 906 did not Join. Again, when fresh appointment orders for 906 vacancies were issued, 158 candidates did not join in various districts and for 137 posts no information could be collected. This clearly indicates that such instances will always occur when persons, who are offered to join as LDCs., may not like to join for several reasons, including that they may have been able to get some better appointments, till the result was declared by the RPSC and job was offered to them. It may be stated that it is difficult to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the State that, even in these days of unemployment, when the young educated persons are running from pillar to post to get whatever employment is available to them, they will refuse to join merely because merit list is prepared at State level and the job is offered in a particular district, which may not be to the liking of a particular selected candidate. It may also be pointed out that there is no base of such thinking. Rule 21 of the Rules, 1957 clearly provides that every candidate shall state in the application form the name of two districts or departments, in which he desires to serve. It further provides that, in case of non-availability of vacancies in the districts of his desire, he may be posted in any district of the State. This provision will be applicable, even when the competition is held at State level. The candidates, therefore, will be still giving the choice of two districts/departments, in which they desire to be posted and, in case of non-availability, they will be posted in any other district of the State. It may be pointed out that all these writ petitions have been filed by such persons, who appeared in the Competitive Examination, held in the year, 1986 and are suffering the consequence of not getting the appointments, even though they are more meritorious, because the Competitive Examination was held on District basis and preparation of the merit list was also on the same basis. Thus, these young people, who actually face the unemployment, inspite of being educated, can understand the pathos of unemployment on account of fallacious policy of the State more than perhaps anyone else. This policy has, therefore, no nexus with the object given out by the State that under the District wise merit list, all selected candidates will join, which will result in efficient running of the Government. In fact, the policy of such classification has resulted in the object being destroyed rather than achieved. 10. The petitioners placed reliance on P. Rajendran v. State of Madras, AIR 1968 SC 1012 , which similar question came for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. This was a matter regarding selection of candidates for first year Integrated M. B. B. S. Course and allocation of seats was made District-wise. It was observed that: "The fact however that the classification by itself is reasonable is not enough to support it unless there is nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. Therefore, where he object to be achieved is to get the best talent for admission to professional colleges, the allocation of seats districtwise has no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved. Therefore, where he object to be achieved is to get the best talent for admission to professional colleges, the allocation of seats districtwise has no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved. If anything, such allocation will result in many cases in the object being destroyed, and if that is so, the classification even if reasonable would result in discrimination, in as much as better qualified candidates from one district may be rejected while less qualified candidates from other districts may be admitted from either-general pool or from socially and educationally backward classes." As already discussed above, in the matter under consideration, districtwise allocation of seats and districtwise preparation of merit list has, in fact, destroyed the very object of holding Competitive Examination for selecting the most meritorious candidates. The result has been that more meritorious candidates from several districts are knocking the doors of the court for years together and less meritorious, who obtained as less as 37.5% marks are enjoying the appointments, merely because competition was held districtwise. Prakash Chandra Agrawal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1985 SC 1709 , was a matter regarding recruitment to judicial Service. The Bihar Public Service Commission fixed 38% as qualifying marks for unreversed class of candidates. However, in the list certain candidates securing less than 30% marks were included and shown as successful candidates. The name of appellant, who had secured 38.8% marks was not forwarded in list of successful candidates. It was held by the Apex Court that name of appellant should have been forwarded in the list submitted by the Commission to the Government by placing his name above the name of candidate, who had secured less marks than the appellant. By not doing so, the Commission had violated the Rules and also Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the matter under consideration also, more meritorious students have not been included in the list of successful candidates for giving appointments and those, who have secured much less percentage of marks, have been declared to be successful and given appointments, merely because of the policy of the State to hold Competitive Examination districtwise and prepare the merit list also districtwise. Such Rules are, therefore, evidently violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such Rules are, therefore, evidently violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Reserve Bank of India v. C. N. Saharanaman, AIR 1986 SC 1830 , referred on behalf of the respondents, was a matter regarding scheme of promotion of Class III employees of Reserve Bank, in which provision for consideration of centre-wise seniority was involved. It was observed by the Apex Court that such policy of promotion cannot be said violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that the seniority on All India basis is not going to be considered. The Constitutionality of the Policy is to be judged b considering whether it is fair, reasonable and does justice to the majority of, employees and fortunes of some individuals is not the touchstone. Evidently, this authority has no bearing on the matter under consideration, which is not regarding scheme of promotion, but regarding holding of Competitive Examination to select the more meritorious candidates for offering jobs of LDCs by the State. 11. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that holding of districtwise competition and preparing the merit list for each district has no nexus for achieving any object as given out on behalf of the State. In fact, this had destroyed the very purpose of holding Competitive Examination, which is always held to select more meritorious candidates to get employment, so that the work of the the work of the State be carried on efficiently. We, therefore, hold that the second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules, 1957, which provides for holding Competitive Examination for the posts of LDCs. in Subordinate Offices districtwise by the RPSC, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Similarly, sub-rule (1) of Rule 24 of the rules, 1957, so far as it provides that the Commission shall prepare the lists districtwise of the candidates declared successful, is also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Both these Rules, in so far as stated above are therefore, struck down. 12. It was given out by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that this Court in another D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 107/91 (State and another v. Sunita Gupta) , had given direction on April 10, 1991 that 906 vacancies of LDCs., which have not yet been filled up, be now filled up by the State. 12. It was given out by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that this Court in another D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 107/91 (State and another v. Sunita Gupta) , had given direction on April 10, 1991 that 906 vacancies of LDCs., which have not yet been filled up, be now filled up by the State. Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of several respondents in the said Special Appeal that 337 posts of LDCs. are still lying vacant as several persons to whom appointments of LDCs. were offered, have not joined. It was further made clear on behalf of the petitioners that they do not desire to disturb the appointments already given on the posts of LDCs. and that the remaining posts be filled up on State-wise merit, which may be prepared by the RPSC on the basis of the examination held in 1986. It may be pointed out that in the present writ petitions, challenge given to some of the Rules of 1957 was under consideration and question of disturbing the appointments, on the posts LDCs. already given, does not arise, nor there is any such prayer and those appointed have also not been arrayed as parties in these writ petitions. However, since the relevant portions of Rules 19 and 24 of the Rules 1957, regarding holding examination district wise and preparing merit list also on district basis have been struck down, therefore, we direct that such posts of LDCs., which are still lying vacant, out of 906 posts, shall be filled up, after preparing the list on State-wise merit basis. This list should be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioners and even such other candidates, who have not approached this Court on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the examination held in be year, 1986, by the RPSC, in which the merit lists were prepared on district-basis. The RPSC shall invite options from the candidates other than those, who had already been given appointments as LDCs, for one more district and after receiving the options, will prepare a fresh list for such number of vacancies as may be still lying vacant out of 906 vacancies referred to above. Thereafter, this list shall be forwarded to the Government. The RPSC shall invite options from the candidates other than those, who had already been given appointments as LDCs, for one more district and after receiving the options, will prepare a fresh list for such number of vacancies as may be still lying vacant out of 906 vacancies referred to above. Thereafter, this list shall be forwarded to the Government. The Government shall make appointments, as per the list, on the un-filled posts, out of 906 posts, mentioned above, within four weeks thereafter. 13. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed, as above, with no order as to costs.Petitions allowed. *******