JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who was one of the candidates for selection/appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur-respondent No. 1, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up 12 posts of L.D.Cs. and who did not succeed in getting appointment on account of his failure to qualify the typing test conducted by respondent No. 1 has filed this writ petition in this Court challenging the appointments of L.D.Cs. made pursuant to the notification dated 31.3.89 and the selection dated 8.3.90. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that on 31st March, 1989, an advertisement was issued by the respondent No. 1 inviting applications from all the eligible candidates for filling up 12 vacant posts of L.D.Cs. in the judgeship at Sawai Madhpur. 3. It was stated in sub-clause (7) of Clause (2) of the notification that 15% posts would be reserved for Class-IV employees already working under respondent No. I and all the posts will also be reserved according to the 100 point roster for the candidates belonging to SC/ST/Handicapped and Ex-Serviceman. Sub-clause (7) of Clause (2) of the notification reads as under "RESERVATION : (a) 15% posts shall be kept reserved for Class-IV employees working under respondent No. 1 and who are eligible to be appointed on the post of L.D.C. (b) Posts will also be reserved according to 100 point roster for the candidates belonging to SC/ST/Handicapped/Ex-Serviceman. (c) In the event of non-availability of the eligible candidates from the category of SC/ST/Handicapped/Ex- Serviceman the posts shall be filled in from the general candidates." 4. As per the notification, referred to above, the examinations for appointment of the L.D.Cs. was divided in 2 parts i.e. Part-A comprising of written papers of English and Hindi having 100 marks each while Part-B comprising of English or Hindi typing with 100 marks. For qualifying the Typing Test in English the minimum speed which was prescribed was 25 words per minute whereas for Hind Typing Test 20 words per minute speed was the requirement. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification the petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 28.5.89 and was declared qualified in the same. For qualifying the Typing Test in English the minimum speed which was prescribed was 25 words per minute whereas for Hind Typing Test 20 words per minute speed was the requirement. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification the petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 28.5.89 and was declared qualified in the same. Thereafter the petitioner received an information from respondent No. 1 calling upon the petitioner to appear in the Typing Test scheduled for 6.8.89 at about 1.0.00 a.m. vide letter dated 17.7.89 (Annex-1). The petitioner appeared in Typing Test but was unable to qualify the same. It has been further contended in the writ petition that out of 108 candidates who appeared in the written test only 12 candidates qualified in the same and all the 12 vacancies were filled up from the category of general candidates while no SC/ST candidate was appointed. It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a member of SC and since the petitioner's speed of typing was much lower than that required under the notification and since the petitioner was the only person belonging to SC. the petitioner was quite hopeful that he would be selected by the respondent but the said respondent did not select the petitioner in violation of the requirement of the notification dated 31st March, 1989 and also in contravention of the instructions issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms. 6. It has been further contended by the petitioner that respondent should have given appointment to the petitioner in the quota reserved for SC but it was not done by the respondent. It has been further contended that out of 12 candidates selected, ultimately vide order dated 8th March, 1990 issued by the respondent none of the candidates was appointed belonging either to SC or ST As per the appointment order dated 8th March, 1990 issued by the respondent, those candidates who had qualified the written test as well as the typing test held on 28th May, 1989 and 5.10.89 respectively and those who were declared successful were to be appointed initially for a period of 6 months on adhoc basis in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1680 on the post of. L.D.Cs. under the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. 7. 950-1680 on the post of. L.D.Cs. under the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. 7. In support of his contentions advanced at the Bar Shri M.M. Mehrish, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 denying appointment to the petitioner who belonged to the reserved category of SC candidates, is not sustainable in law since the petitioner fulfills all the requisite and necessary qualifications and was entitled to be selected on the post of LDC by the respondent. 8. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the respondent had no powers to appoint all the candidates from the general category in view of the reservation in favour of SC/ST and that could be done only in the event of non-availability of suitable candidate from the category of SC/ST and since the petitioner was a suitable candidate who had qualified the written test, he was eligible to be appointed. It was further contended at the Bar that in view of the notification dated 16.8.89 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, imposing ban of de-reservation in direct recruitment to vacancies under the Government, according to the existing rule contained in various Service Rules, if the vacancies reserved for SC/ST candidates remained unfilled due to the non-availability of eligible and suitable candidates from amongst SC/ST in a particular year the vacancies so reserved for them are to be fulled up in accordance with the normal procedure and equivalent number of vacancies are to be carried forward to the subsequent year. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner at the bar that in view of the ban of de-reservation in pursuance of the notification, as referred to above, the said ban will apply not only to vacancies which arise after the issuance of this order but will also apply to those vacancies reserved for SC/ST of previous years which have not been filled up from the category of general candidates. Thus second attempt could have been made for recruiting suitable candidates from SC/ST and the appointment should not have been done from the category of general candidates as so done by the respondent. 9. In reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent it has been contended by Miss Deepa Ajwani, Dy. Thus second attempt could have been made for recruiting suitable candidates from SC/ST and the appointment should not have been done from the category of general candidates as so done by the respondent. 9. In reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent it has been contended by Miss Deepa Ajwani, Dy. G.A. for the State, that since the petitioner had failed in the typing test in pursuance of the examination held for the post of LDC on 28.5.89, he was not eligible to be appointed on the said post and merely because he had passed the written test was no criteria by itself to give appointment to the petitioner. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the mandatory requirement as stipulated in the advertisement dated 31.3.89 was that a candidate appeared in written test as well as in typing test and only such candidates would be declared successful was qualify the examinations in respect of the written test as well as of the typing test as per the standards prescribed by the appointing authority for the same. In support of her arguments advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1986, which specifically provides that appointment shall be made strictly in accordance with the rosters prescribed separately for direct recruitment and promotion. The said rule also stipulated that in the event of non-availability of the eligible and suitable candidates amongst the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for, shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure, and an equivalent number of additional vacancies shall be reserved in the subsequent year. Such of the vacancies which remain so unfilled shall be carried forward to the subsequent three recruitment years in total and thereafter such reservation would lapse. 10. It was further contended by the learned counsel that a bare reading of Rule 7 makes it explicitly clear that the said rule does not permit second examination for those who have failed in the first examination conducted by the appointing authority. 10. It was further contended by the learned counsel that a bare reading of Rule 7 makes it explicitly clear that the said rule does not permit second examination for those who have failed in the first examination conducted by the appointing authority. With regard to the notification dated 31.3.89 inviting applications from the candidates for filling up the posts of LDC, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent at the bar that the impugned circular dated 21st May, 1971 issued by the State Government regarding appointments on the posts of LDCs in the ministerial cadre of various departments, offices etc., the criteria in accordance with Rule 7(b) read with part-II of Schedule-I of the Rules of 1986, which provides for reservation of vacancies from the members of SC/ST candidates does not have any over-riding effect over the rules in as much as the Rules came into force at ,.later date with effect from 25.2.86 and since the impugned circular is of prior date i.e. 21.5.71, the rules cannot be retrospectively applied for the benefit of the petitioner and other similarly placed candidates. The attention of the Court was also invited to the contents of circular dated 21st May, 1971, a perusal of which makes it clear that a reserved category vacancy need not be kept vacant nor carried forward to next year merely on the ground of non-availability of the candidates knowing typing and should be filled up by selecting SC/ST candidates provided such candidates are suitable in all respects. In this respect it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the case of the petitioner, even otherwise, does not come within the purview of the said circular because if candidate from the reserved quota is to be appointed, he does not by itself get a right to be appointed who does not qualify the typing test and a further condition is imposed in the circular that such candidate has to be found suitable to the appointing authority in all respects and since the petitioner had failed in the typing test and did not fulfil its essential requirement, merely because he is a member of SC is by itself no ground for giving the petitioner any right to be considered for appointment. 11. 11. In reply filed by the respondent to the writ petition, it has been specifically contended therein that it is also relevant to mention that the petitioner secured 30% marks in English, 34% marks in Hindi and only 16% marks in Typing making an aggregate of 40% was not qualified for getting his name included in the select-list in terms of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1986. It has been further contended in the reply that necessary orders were issued by the appointing authority in pursuance of the select- list on 8th March, 1990 and 12 candidates were giving appointment strictly according to their merit. Since the petitioner had failed to meet the requisite criteria, his name was not included in the category of selected candidates and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this core alone. 12. A reference was also made by the learned counsel for the respondent to an identical writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 2553/90 titled as Richhapal Singh & Others v. State of Rajasthan , wherein the similar question had arisen for consideration of this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14th September, 1990 had dismissed the writ petition. The appeal was preferred by the petitioner vide D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 395/92 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.12.90. The aforesaid file was also called for by this Court and I have perused the same. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after having examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the relevant Rules and the documents placed on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to succeed as he has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******