Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1751 (RAJ)

Tarun Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2004-12-08

ASHOK PARIHAR

body2004
Judgment Ashok Parihar, J.-Since, on similar set of facts almost same relief has been claimed in the above writ petitions, at the request of learned Counsel for the parties, all the above petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. As per requisition sent by the State Government, an advertisement dated 08.06.2001 was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for selection to the post of School Lecturer in various subjects. Subsequently, on receiving a fresh requisition, a corrigendum was issued by the Commission on 23.01.2002 in which the vacancies were notified afresh showing the same as back-log vacancies in some of the subjects. As per corrigendum so issued, further applications were received. Interviews were held in the months of January and February, 2003 and, finally, a select list was sent to the State Government by the Commission on 13.07.2003. Consequently, appointments have also been made as per the select list sent by the Commission. 3. Petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the corrigendum issued by the Commission to the extent of making selections in some of the subjects only for back-log vacancies and have prayed that the selections should have been made as per the vacancies notified in the original advertisement dated 08.06.2001. 4. It may be noted here that back-log vacancies were to be filled as per the amendment made in the Constitution of India. Subsequently, another notification was issued on 10.2002, by which, necessary amendments were made in the relevant rules to the extent that the vacancies of SC/ST shall be carried forward till all the vacancies are filled from the candidates of the same category and would not lapse with the time as provided under the relevant rules. A further clarification has been made by the State Government on 26.06.2004, a copy of which has also been placed on record for perusal of the Court. By the above circular dated 26.06.2004 it has been made clear that the notification issued on 10.2002 shall only be prospective. The vacancies occurring prior to 10.2002. shall be filled in as per the rules existed prior to issuing of the above notification. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties I have carefully gone through the material on record. 6. The vacancies occurring prior to 10.2002. shall be filled in as per the rules existed prior to issuing of the above notification. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties I have carefully gone through the material on record. 6. Since, the whole selection process is over as per the revised requisition sent by the State Government and corrigendum issued by the Commission and appointments have also been made long back, the prayers as made in the present writ petitions cannot be accepted at this stage. Mr. Kumawat, learned Counsel for the Commission, also submitted that selections have been made strictly as per requisition sent and corrigendum issued by the Commission. Thus, it will also not be proper and justified to set aside the entire selections and reopen the whole process, more so, when even the appointments have also been made long back. 7. However, since the State Government itself has issued a clarification by circular dated 26.06.2004, much after the selection made in the present case, the State Government in all fairness is now expected to determine the vacancies in respective subjects concerned afresh as per the clarifications made in the circular dated 26.06.2004 and if there are still any vacancies unfilled under any categories, including the general category, for the period prior to 10.2002, the State Government may send a fresh requisition to the Commission to make selections accordingly. 8. Prima facie, it appears that there has been confusion among the authorities in regard to determination of vacancies in view of the amendment made in the Constitution of India and then a subsequent notification issued on 10.2002 and, in view of such circumstances, many candidates might have become over age by now at the time of fresh selections, if any, to be made. It is expected of the State Government to give age relaxation to the candidates in the particular selections, the powers of which have also been given under the relevant rules itself. 9. In the interest of services and public at large, wherein large number of unemployed youth are involved, the State Government is expected to make the necessary exercise and act accordingly as expeditiously as possible. 10. With the above observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.