Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1397 (RAJ)

Dayaram v. R. P. S. C. Ajmer

2014-07-15

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2014
ORDER All these writ petitions have been filed by petitioners with the prayer that the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the RPSC) be directed to allow them to participate in RAS and RTS Main Examination, 2012 to compete against the quota of departmental candidates. The RPSC by the advertisement dated 06.02.2012 notified total 289 posts for different State Services and 817 posts of Subordinate Services. The petitioners are claiming their consideration for appointment in subordinate services in the quota of departmental candidates. The RPSC has notified two posts in the Rajasthan Devasthan Services and 14 posts in Rajasthan Subordinate Devasthan Services, 103 posts in Rajasthan Food and Civil Supply Services and 460 in Rajasthan Cooperative Subordinate Services, 33 posts in Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department. The RPSC in note 3 below Clause-5 of the advertisement indicated the Departmental Ministerial Staff as a separate category. Clause 15(1) of the advertisement categorically provided that the candidate should carefully read the guidelines provided for filing up online application which categorically indicated that these posts are meant for departmental candidates of the concerned department only, who may compete against such posts meant for them. The petitioners have contended that the advertisement issued by the respondents on 06.02.2012 contained a provision for reservation of departmental candidates from all the departments, besides entitling them to the reservation in their respective category such as ST/SC and OBC. Even though they have secured much more marks than the cut off marks but they are not being considered. They have illegally not been considered for appointment against the vacancies of the subordinate service in the aforementioned five departments. Such appointment has been restricted to the candidates from each of those epartments, even though the petitioners are far more meritorious than them. The RPSC, in reply to the CWP 1369 of 2013, has contended that 12.5% reservation posts in the subordinate services for the ministerial staff of the concerned department has been provided for by the Rajasthan Subordinate Co-operative Services Rules, 1955, Commercial Taxes Department by the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Services Rules, 1971, Rajasthan Food and Civil Supply Department by the Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Rules, 1974 and the Rajasthan Excise Department for the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 and the Rajasthan Women and Children Development Subordinate Department, the Rajasthan Excise Department. First proviso to Rule 6 (part-III) the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Services Rules, 1971 provides as under:- “Provided that 12.5% of the posts of Inspector Grade II to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the Ministerial Staff of the Commercial Taxes Department holding a post in the cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the rules. The reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.” Similar provision is made in Rule 7-A of the Rajasthan Subordinate Co-operative Service (Class-I) Rules, 1955, which reads as under: “7-A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 7, regarding method of recruitment/ source of recruitment, 12½% of the posts to be filled in by direct recruitment to the post of Inspector Grade II/ (Audit/Executive) shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the Ministerial staff holding a post in the cadre substantively of the department concerned, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the relevant rules. (2) The said reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.” Rule 7-B of the Rajasthan Subordinate Co-operative Service (Class-II) Rules, 1955 is reproduced as under: “7-B (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 7, regarding method of recruitment/ source of recruitment, 12½% of the posts to be filled in by direct recruitment to the post Assistant Inspector Co-operative shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the Ministerial staff holding a post in the cadre substantively of the department concerned, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the relevant rules. (2) The said reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.” Rule 6 in Part-III of the Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 provides that: “6 Methods of Recruitment – (1) Recruitment to the services after the commencement of these Rules shall be made by the following methods in the proportion indicated in column 2 of the Scheme: (a) Direct recruitment in accordance with Part IV of these Rules: Provided that 12½% of the posts of Enforcement Inspector to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the Ministerial Staff holding a post in the cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under these Rules. The reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.” Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 provides as under: “6. Method of Recruitment:- Recruitment to the service after the commencement of these rules shall be made by the following methods in the proportion indicated in column 3 of the Schedule:- (1) Direct recruitment in accordance with Part IV of these rules. Provided that 12½% of the posts of Inspector Grade II to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the Ministerial Staff holding a post in the cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under these rules. The reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.” Thus, as per the mandate of all the aforementioned Rules, 12½% posts have been earmarked only for the Ministerial Staff of the concerned departments covered by such Rules and are not available for those from other departments. Process for filling such posts is initiated only at the instance of the concerned departments when they send requisition to the RPSC, which hold the combined competitive examination, for inclusion of such posts within the purview of the same advertisement. Inclusion of such posts in the same process of selection only facilitates the task of such departments to subject their Ministerial Staff to the same competitive examination and on the same standard. Only because such examination is held by the RPSC, it is not open for the Ministerial Staff of other departments, than these five departments, to claim appointment on such posts. Ministerial staff has been recognized as a district category than non-gazetted employees by the rule making authority even in Rule 20 of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 which inter alia provides as under: “20. Ministerial staff has been recognized as a district category than non-gazetted employees by the rule making authority even in Rule 20 of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 which inter alia provides as under: “20. Selection by the Government or by the Appointment Authority: (1) Subject to the number of posts specified in the notice issued under rule 8 and subject to reservation of posts in favour of candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes/Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, non-gazetted Employees, Woman Candidates, Physically Handicapped persons, and Ministerial Staff in respect of posts included in Schedule-I and Schedule-II, as the case may be, the Government or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall select candidates who stand in the order of merit in the list prepared by the Commission under rule 17 strictly in accordance with the order of preference given by the candidates in their application forms for different Services/Posts: Provided that:- (1) It is satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that such candidates are suitable in all other respects for appointment to the pots in the service. (2) If a person, selected under sub-rule (1) above and appointed to a Post/Service concerned in accordance with the relevant Services Rules against the vacancies of a particular year for which the Combined Competitive Examination was conducted by the Commission in accordance with these Rules, does not join on the post offered to him/her or has resigned or expired in any subsequent year, in that event the said vacancy shall be treated as fresh vacancy.” (Emphasis supplied) It is apparent from the afore-extracted Rule 20 of the Rules of 1999 that the Ministerial Staff in respect of post included in Schedule-I and II has been treated as a distinct and separate category than non-gazetted employees and therefore, petitioners cannot be treated at par with the ministerial staff of concerned five departments. In view of clear provisions in the Subordinate Service Rules of five connected departments, Ministerial Staff of the other departments would not be entitled to compete against the posts of any of these departments. Moreover, even the ministerial staff of one of the five departments also cannot apply for appointment against the posts of another department within those five. In view of clear provisions in the Subordinate Service Rules of five connected departments, Ministerial Staff of the other departments would not be entitled to compete against the posts of any of these departments. Moreover, even the ministerial staff of one of the five departments also cannot apply for appointment against the posts of another department within those five. For example, if a ministerial staff of co-operative department has applied for appointment in subordinate service of the Cooperative Department, wherefor 54 posts have been notified, he/she cannot compete against the post of Excise Department and vice versa. The petitioners have not assailed the validity of the scheme of Rules. If the Rule making authority has decided to give an avenue of advancement in carrier to Ministerial Staff of these departments, the petitioner, who are not from concerned five departments, but belong to other departments, cannot claim their consideration for appointment against such posts. In view of the above discussion, I do not find merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in all the files.