JUDGMENT 1. - Both the aforesaid appeals are filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated November 24, 1992 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6743/91, S.K. Agarwal and Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3425/92, A.K. Jain and Others v. R.P.S.C . Since the impugned order is the same, both these appeals are disposed of by this single judgment. 2. Shri A.K. Jain, Shri S.S. Kapde, Shri Sunil Jain and Miss Sangita Agarwal filed a joint writ petition. Rajasthan Public Service Commission had issued advertisement No. 6/90-91 dated 21st December, 1990 which was published in Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur Edition on 9th January, 1991 whereby it invited applications for different posts including the post of Asstt. Agriculture Chemist which post had subsequently been designated as Agriculture Research Officer.I Ten posts were advertised out of which three posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates and two for Scheduled Tribes candidates. Regarding academic qualifications the requirement was atleast IInd class Masters Degree in Chemistry, Agriculture Chemistry or Social Science or associated I A R I (Agr. Chemist) or any other recognised equivalent degrees obtained from an Indian or Foreign University. All the four petitioners had applied against the said advertisement. On 28th November, 1991, the Government sent requisition for eight additional vacancies. Subsequently by letter, dated 3rd March, 1992, eight posts were reduced to seven and thus the requisition remained for seventeen posts. Screening test was held by the Public Service Commission on 1st February, 1992 and the petitioners passed the Screening Test. In the Newspaper Dainik Navjyoti, Ajmer Edition, dated 9th February, 1992, a list of fifteen candidates was published. It may be mentioned that in pursuance of the first advertisement 315 application forms had been received and after initial scrutiny of the application forms, it was found that only 14 candidates, 8 from category of Scheduled Caste and 6 from category of Scheduled Tribes, had sent their application forms and rest of 301 were from general category. The Public Service Commission looking to the very small number of the application forms as compared to the number of posts reserved for SC/ST categories, had exempted these candidates from the Screening Test. Remaining 301 candidates were allowed to appear in the test and the result had been declared on 7th January, 1992. The Public Service Commission looking to the very small number of the application forms as compared to the number of posts reserved for SC/ST categories, had exempted these candidates from the Screening Test. Remaining 301 candidates were allowed to appear in the test and the result had been declared on 7th January, 1992. In view of the fact that initially there were only five vacancies from the general category, the list of 15 candidates was published who were to be called for interview and it was after this Screening Test that requisition of the aforementioned 8 posts of Assistant Agriculture Chemist were reduced to 7 by the State Government. Thus, finally the Commission was to send names for 17 posts, 10 from general category, 4 from Scheduled Caste and 3 from Scheduled Tribes. 28 candidates were called for interview on 25/263.92 and these 28 candidates included 15 from the general category the result of whom was declared on 7th January, 1992, 7 from the category of Scheduled Caste and 6 from the category of Scheduled Tribes. After interview only 15 candidates were found suitable which included 2 from the category of Scheduled Caste and 1 from the category of Scheduled Tribes and on remaining 12 posts the candidates from general category were selected. Since only 15 candidates were found suitable, no reserve list was prepared. The petitioners case was that since the posts had been increased from 10 to 18, the number of candidates to be interviewed should have been increased proportionately as against 5 posts when 15 candidates were called, against another 8 posts 24 more candidates should have been called for interview. The case of the petitioners in the writ petition was that they were not called for interview and, therefore, were deprived of their right of equal opportunity in the matter of employment as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since the Public Service Commission initially could prepare a reserve list to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies as per provisions of Rules 18 and 20 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1960"), not having done that the petitioners filed the writ petition with the prayer that the entire selections made by respondent No. 1 on the post of Asstt. Agriculture Research Officer in pursuance of the Advertisement, dated 21st December, 1990, may be declared to be illegal and the same may be quashed. It was further prayed that the selections made against 8 posts sent by the Government vide their letter, dated 28th November, 1991, may also be declared to be illegal. A further prayer was made that the select list issued by the Public Service Commission on 26th March, 1992, be declared to be illegal and the Commission be directed to hold selections afresh after giving the petitioners full opportunity including the opportunity to be interviewed for the post of Asstt. Agriculture Research Officer. 3. Public Service Commission contested the writ petition and submitted that in all 28 candidates were called for interview of whom 15 candidates belonged to general category, 7 from S.C. and 6 from amongst the S.T. It was contended that the Commission had discretion to fix the ratio up to three times and it can call candidates even less than three times of the vacancies but the ratio has never exceeded three times and the additional requisition sent by the State Government after advertisement of the vacancies will not affect the number of the persons to be called for interview. 4. It was submitted that as only 15 candidates were found suitable no reserve list could be and was prepared. The submission is that only 10 vacancies were advertised and as per provisions of Rules 18 and 22 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960, the Commission initially could prepare a reserve list to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies and further if intimation of additional requirement was sent to the Commission before the selection, the Commission could prepare a reserve list. It was then submitted that the post of Agriculture Research Officer (Chemist) under the Scheme of the Rules was to be filled in 60% by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment and there is separate procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1960 with a separate Chapter of promotion and direct recruitment postulated in Chapters 4 and 5 of the Rules. It was then submitted that the post of Agriculture Research Officer (Chemist) under the Scheme of the Rules was to be filled in 60% by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment and there is separate procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1960 with a separate Chapter of promotion and direct recruitment postulated in Chapters 4 and 5 of the Rules. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to go into the scheme of the Rules of 1960 and to come to the conclusion that additional vacancies sent by the Government vide letter dated 31.1.1992 was not justified and the Government had no jurisdiction to send the names for the purpose of consideration on the basis of advertisement issued on 21.12.1990 and, therefore, the Commission could not have considered these vacancies. It is submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed. 5. We have given our due consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the entire record and have carefully gone through the order delivered by the learned Single Judge. 6. For appreciation of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it is essential to quote the Rules 18 and 22 of Rules of 1960. "Rule 18- Inviting of applications-Applications for direct recruitment to the post or posts in the Service shall be invited by the Commission by advertising the vacancies to be so filled; in the Rajasthan Gazette or in such other manner as they may deem fit; Provided that while selecting candidates for the vacancies so advertised, the Commission may, (i) if intimation of additional requirement is sent to the Commission before the selection and (ii) if suitable persons are available keep on their reserve list more candidates whose number shall not exceed 50% of the advertised vacancies. (The names of such candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in the order of merit to the Appointing Authority within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded to the Appointing Authority." "Rule 22- Recommendations of the Commission-The Commission shall thereafter, prepare a list of the candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post or posts concerned, arranged in order of preference and forward the same to Government: Provided that the Commission, may to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The names of such candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in the order of merit to the Government within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government." The aforesaid rules have to be read along with the Schedule appended which provides that the recruitment to the post of Asstt. Agriculture (Chemist) falls in group B amongst the junior post, be made by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 60:40. These two Rules along with the Schedule cannot be read in isolation. They have to be read along with the Rules regarding determination of the vacancies and in accordance with the quota rules and, therefore, in our opinion the learned Single Judge was right in holding that it is only after the determination of the vacancies, requisition is to be sent to the Commission and it is thereafter that the Commission has to undertake the process of selection by inviting applications and considering the candidature of the eligible persons followed by preparation of the select list and then to forward it to the Government. It is in this process that the Commission has to keep the names of the suitable candidates in reserve list upto the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies. It is this reserve list which can be utilised for making appointments on the basis of requisition which may be made by the Government within a period of six months from the date on which the Commission has forwarded the original list. The interpretation sought to be given by the State and the Commission that Rules 18 and 22 authorise the Government to treat the vacancies of subsequent years as additional vacancies and use them for the purpose of selection with reference to the vacancies already advertised, had only been advanced to be rejected. If the interpretation sought to be given by State or R.P.S.C. is accepted, then the entire scheme of the Rules will collapse. If the interpretation sought to be given by State or R.P.S.C. is accepted, then the entire scheme of the Rules will collapse. The submission of the learned counsel for the Commission that the learned Single Judge should not have gone into the scheme of the Rules of 1960, cannot be accepted, as the foundation for making recruitment to the post by either method has to be done in accordance with the Rules and when the Rules provide the quota for recruitment from various sources, quota rule has to be adhered in letter and spirit and cannot be divorced in any particular year. Determination of the vacancies year to year and then making recruitment accordingly is the condition precedent for filling the vacancies. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the case in great details and has arrived at the following conclusions:- (1) Under the scheme of the Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960 recruitment is required to be made to the post of Agriculture Research Officer by promotion and by direct recruitment in the ratio of 60:40. The Government and its functionaries are under a statutory obligation to strictly maintain the quota between the promotees and direct recruits and if any imbalance has occurred in the past it has to be remedied according to Rule 10(1) (c) of the Rules. (2) Where sources of recruitment to a particular cadre or posts are more than one, promotion quota vacancies of earlier years can be filled only with reference to the vacancies already filled by direct recruitment and if direct recruitment has been made in the earlier years promotion quota vacancies cannot be filled. (3) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission or any other selecting body can prepare the reserve list of suitable candidates only to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies intimation regarding additional vacancies has been sent by the Government/appointing authority or not; (4) The vacancies occurring after the determination of vacancies cannot be treated as additional vacancies for the purpose of Rule 18 of similar rule in other service rules. Such vacancies will have to be taken into consideration for determination of vacancies of subsequent year. 7. In our opinion none of the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. Since we are in agreement with the findings, we need not give elaborate reasonings also. Such vacancies will have to be taken into consideration for determination of vacancies of subsequent year. 7. In our opinion none of the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. Since we are in agreement with the findings, we need not give elaborate reasonings also. We have no hesitation in holding that the State Government had committed an illegality in sending the requisition for 8 additional vacancies to the Commission ignoring the fact that the vacancies pertained to subsequent years and the Commission consequently also committed an error in taking into consideration these additional vacancies while making its recommendations for the appointments. In our opinion the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. 8. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeals dismissed. *******