JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, which is the representative body of the Rajasthan Assistant Accounts Officers' Association, District Branch, Jaipur through its President, by way of the instant writ petition, has raised the question for determination by this court as to whether it was open to respondents to fill-up the vacancies in Rajasthan Accounts Service without determining at first instance the actual number of sanctioned posts in the said cadre? 2. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit from which it is apparent that the State Government has leased clarification-cum-direction vide its order dated 7.9.1996, which is self-explanatory and which clarifies that the vacancies should be determined on the basis of total number of sanctioned posts in service irrespective of nomenclature/scale of the posts. 3. The perusal of the aforesaid circular, which is forming part of the additional affidavit vide Annexures 14 & 15 dated 7.9.1996 & 13.11.1996 respectively, reveals that the State Government has already done the necessary exercise is not only determining the total number of sanctioned posts in the Rajasthan Accounts Services cadre but has also done the needful by determining the said vacancies category-wise and it is only thereafter that recruitment's have been made in various services by way of the open competitive examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for short "R.P.S.C." and also in accordance with other methods, prescribed by the appointing authority. Hence it cannot be said that the recruitment in said service in the financial year 1993-94 or in the subsequent years has been done by the respondents contrary to the aforesaid procedure. In view of the Notification dated 13.11.1996, which was issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan on 13.11.1996 vide (Annexure-15), in exercise of the powers conferred on the State by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, after carrying-out necessary amendment in the Services Rules, the following new Rule mentioned in column No. 4 was added as follows: "Recruitment to the service by the aforesaid method shall be made in such a manner that the persons appointed to the service by each method do not at any time exceed the percentage laid down in the Rules/Schedule of the total cadre strength as sanctioned for each category from time to time." 4. During the course of hearing, Shri Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended at the bar that the then Secretary of Department of Personnel as well as the Special Secretary (finance) along with the representatives of the respondents held detailed discussions and it was agreed in principle that in view of the number of vacancies calculated for promotees quota, the exercise for which was not done properly and, therefore, the D.P.C. which was scheduled to be conveyed for determining the vacancies for the year 1994-95, which was to be held on 12.5.1994 for making promotions for the posts of Assistant Accounts Officers was directed to be postponed till the correct number of vacancies were determined. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the respondents had also issued promotional orders in the petitioner's cadre vide order dated 27.12.1996 and as per the cadre strength in the Rajasthan Accounts Service was 500 candidates to he filled the ratio of 50 per cent by direct recruitment and 50 percent by promotion. As against this the actual working strength was 470 as against which 297 posts were filled-in by way of direct recruitment and 173 posts were filled-in from amongst the promotees. 6. As a result the said exercise done by the respondents was as follows: Total number of post 50% by Direct recruitment 50% by Promotion Sanctioned Actual Working Strength 500 470 - 30 Vacant - 250 297 - 47 Excess - 250 173 - 77 Short to the Quota - 7. The imbalance, which has resulted for filling up in the vacancies as on 1.1.1997 is to the extent of 77 candidates by way of short-fall in the quota of promotees. 8. Similar controversy has arisen for consideration of this Court in the matter of Dhanraj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3170/87. regarding how to remove the imbalances,which may result in a particular year where the promotions are made by the Competent Authority in excess of the prescribed promotion quota and how to meet the shortfall in appropriate cases. This Court held that as a result of the exercise, if it is found that the appointments have been made in any particular year in excess of the prescribed promotion quota, the seniority of such promotees shall he determined by pushing them down. This Court held that as a result of the exercise, if it is found that the appointments have been made in any particular year in excess of the prescribed promotion quota, the seniority of such promotees shall he determined by pushing them down. It was further directed that they he placed in the seniority list strictly in accordance with the quota prescribed for promotees. 9. The respondents were consequently directed to re-fix the seniority in accordance with the principles laid-down in the aforesaid order within the stipulated period of four months as so fixed by this Court. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents consequently preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 870/93 and 352/93, which came to be decided by this Court on 10.4.1995 (titled: State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Dhanraj Sharma, reported in 1995 (3) W.L.C. (Raj) 369) . This court while disposing of the Appeal preferred by the State directed that the appointing authority is obligated to make yearwise determination of vacancies for direct recruits as well as promotees and any inaction or omission on the part of Authority to do so, cannot become basis for denying eligibility to those candidates who were found eligible in any particular year but became ineligible subsequently merely because of absence of determination of vacancies on yearly basis. Consequently the State Government as well as the R.P.S.C. were directed to determine exact number of vacancies in cadre of Labour Welfare Officers through immediate advertisement or within reasonable time so as to enable to the eligible candidates, who are so eligible in a particular year when the vacancies had arisen with a further direction that such candidates would not become ineligible subsequently either on the ground of age or qualifications. The State Government was further directed to maintain quota of 50:50 and to draw up a fresh seniority-list and to refix seniority of the respondents within the stipulated time. 11. The learned Division Bench of this Court while deciding the aforesaid appeal had placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of G.S. Lamba and others v. Union of India and others reported in 1985 (2) S.C.C. page 604 as well as in the matter of the Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer's Association and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1990 (2) S.L.R. page 769. 12. 12. While in the above matter, the question at issue was regarding non- determination of year-wise vacancies whereas in the present case, the question at issue pertains to the shortfall on account of non-determination of year-wise vacancies, which has not been done in accordance with Rules. This fact is also borne-out from the office order dated 7.0.1Q06, filed as (Annexure-14) along with the additional affidavit of the petitioner dated 12.12.1996. The additional affidavit dated 12.12.1996 of the petitioner, which has been supplied to this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing is taken on the record. The respondents have also clarified the aforesaid position to the following effect: "In view of this situation, it is clarified that the vacancies should be determined on the basis of the total posts sanctioned in a service irrespective of the nomenclature/scale of the post. The vacancies will he determined category-wise on this basis so as to maintain the prescribed percentage for each category i.e. General , Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes." 13. In confirmation of the above, the respondents have also amended the Rules by way of a Notification dated 13.11.1996 vide (Annexure-15). 14. Prima-facie, I am of the view that the short-fall in determining the vacancies in the quota of promotees in the Rajasthan Accounts Service for the period in dispute has resulted entirely on account of the lapse on the part of the respondents and on account of non-determination of the year-wise vacancies, which had fallen due in the quota of promotees and the aforesaid imbalance can only be rectified by way of holding the review D.P.C. at the earliest for determining the year-wise vacancies for-the period in dispute i.e. 1992-93 and onwards. 15. As a result of the above discussion, the petitioner deserves to succeed. 16. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. the Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur as well as the Secretary to the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Secretariat, Jaipur are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions of this Court by convening the review D.P.C. for determining the year-wise vacancies, which has fallen due in Rajasthan Accounts Service in the quota of direct recruits as well as promotees for the period 1992-93 and onwards and the said exercise should be done positively within a period of 90 days from today. 17. 17. The Deputy Registrar (judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for necessary and immediate compliance.With the above directions, the writ petition is consequently allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs.Writ petition Allowed. *******