ORDER : 1. Present petition is filed with the following prayers: “(a) declare the action of the Respondent No. 1 to 5 as illegal, arbitrary and against the statutory provisions provided under the law by not considering the candidature of the Petitioners against the posts reserved for departmental candidates advertised in the advertisement dated 20.07.2021. (b) declare the candidature of the Respondent No. 6 to 12 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provisions provided under the law and quash and set aside the candidature of Respondent No. 6 to 12 against the posts reserved for departmental candidates advertised in the advertisement dated 20.07.2021. (c) direct the Respondent No. 1 to 5 to consider the candidature of the Petitioners against the posts reserved for departmental candidates advertised in the advertisement dated 20.07.2021 and declared the Petitioners as successful candidates for making appointment against the posts reserved for departmental candidates advertised in the advertisement dated 20.07.2021. (d) Any other order which your lordships may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the Petitioners and in the interest of justice.” 2. The crux of the matter is that the respondent No. 5 vide advertisement dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure-1) invited applications for recruitment of personnel under the Non-TSP (General) area category, under the Rajasthan State and Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as rules of 1999) for filling 988 posts including State Services and Subordinate Services for direct recruitment from open market and for posts reserved for departmental candidates - already working in the respondent department. In pursuance to the said advertisement the petitioners who belonged to Rajasthan Agricultural Services and have been serving various Agricultural Marketing Yards under the directions of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 applied under the category of Subordinate services (mentioned at Sr. No. 14). Under the said category there had been 8 posts for Rajasthan Agricultural Services (Junior Marketing Officer). Howsoever, out of the total vacancies of Junior Marketing Officer, 12.5% posts had been reserved for Substantive Ministerial Employees of Department of Agricultural Produce Market committees. 3. In this backdrop, learned counsel representing the petitioners had submitted that resultant to the said advertisement, the preliminary examination was conducted on 27.10.2021 and the result thereof was declared on 19.11.2021 (Annexure-2). The petitioners had qualified the said examination. 3. In this backdrop, learned counsel representing the petitioners had submitted that resultant to the said advertisement, the preliminary examination was conducted on 27.10.2021 and the result thereof was declared on 19.11.2021 (Annexure-2). The petitioners had qualified the said examination. Thereafter, the mains examination qua the qualified candidates was scheduled on 20.03.2022 and 21.03.2022 and the result thereof was declared on 30.08.2022 (Annexure-4). It was further averred that the petitioners failed to procure their name in the final list of selected candidates; however, the private respondents were declared successful and were thereafter appointed. It is pertinent to mention that the private respondents were appointed as Junior Assistant (probation-trainee) on 04.06.2020 and their service as Junior Assistant had been confirmed on 08.06.2022. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel representing the petitioners had placed reliance upon the terms and conditions of advertisement dated 20.07.2021, and had submitted that it is explicitly stated that the requisite criteria for the posts reserved for departmental candidates is minimum five years of continuous service experience, whether officiating or substantive (till the first day of January, 2022). Moreover, as per Rule 4, Schedule- I and Schedule-II of the rules of 1999, wherein, other necessary mandates had been enumerated, the private respondents have failed to fulfill said requisite of possessing five years of experience, whereas, the petitioners are duly eligible. Hence, ought to be considered. 5. Per contra, learned senior counsel Mr. Mathur and learned AAG Mr. Taneja representing the State have vehemently opposed the contentions averred by the learned counsel for the petitioners and had drawn the attention of the Court upon the Special Note (3) of the said advertisement. While placing reliance upon the aforementioned learned counsel had submitted that the clear intention of the author of the said advertisement had been that the candidates who have completed 05 years of service on 01 January, 2022, on the posts reserved for non-gazetted employees; only the employees of the Government of Rajasthan, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads of Rajasthan shall be considered eligible in the concerned cadre. However, the petitioners were employees of the ministerial cadre working in agricultural produce market committees under the Agricultural Produce Market (Mandi Committee Employees) Service Rules, 1975. Therefore, the said candidature cannot be considered under the category of non-gazette employees. 6. However, the petitioners were employees of the ministerial cadre working in agricultural produce market committees under the Agricultural Produce Market (Mandi Committee Employees) Service Rules, 1975. Therefore, the said candidature cannot be considered under the category of non-gazette employees. 6. Moreover, the said advertisement also categorically stated that the recruitment for the post of Junior Marketing Officer will be done through the rules of 1999. Withal, to corroborate the appointment of the private respondents learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed reliance upon the definition of ‘Substantive Appointment’ promulgated in the Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Recruitment and other conditions of service) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as rules of 2001). The relevant provisions are reproduced herein-below: “Rule 3: Definitions: In these Rules unless the context otherwise requires: (M) “Substantive Appointment” means an appointment made under the provisions of these rules to a substantive vacancy after due selection by any of the methods of recruitment prescribed under these rules and includes an appointment on probation or as a probationer followed by confirmation on the completion of the probation period. NOTE: Due selection by any of the methods of recruitment prescribed under these rules will include recruitment either on initial constitution of Service or in accordance with the provisions of any rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, except an urgent temporary appointment. (N) “Service” or “Experience” wherever laid down in these rules as a condition for promotion from one Service to another or within the service from one category to another or to senior posts, in the case of a person holding a lower post eligible for promotion to higher post shall include the period for which the person has continuously worked on such lower post after regular selection in accordance with rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. NOTE: Absence during service e.g. training, leave and deputation etc., which are treated as 'duty' under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 shall also be counted as service for computing experience or service required for promotion.” 7. Further, learned counsel had averred that the provisions of Rule 4 of the rules of 1999 read with Rule 11 of the rules of 2001, unambiguously elucidates that the said experience shall be applicable to the State services only and not upon the departmental service candidates. 8. Further, learned counsel had averred that the provisions of Rule 4 of the rules of 1999 read with Rule 11 of the rules of 2001, unambiguously elucidates that the said experience shall be applicable to the State services only and not upon the departmental service candidates. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated SBCWP No. 10008/2017 titled as Lokendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. decided on 30.11.2017 and had submitted that in compliance with the directions and observations made in Lokendra Singh (Supra) the respondent-State had issued notice dated 14.10.2021.The relevant portion of the said notice dated 14.10.2021 is reproduced herein-below: 9. Moreover, the private respondents were employees under departmental cadre, appointed under the rules of 1999, in Directorate of Agriculture marketing. They were allotted the said services after qualifying the Clerk Grade-II (Junior Assistant) Joint Recruitment Examination, 2018, conducted by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board in the year 2018. Thus, non-gazette employees cannot apply for the post of Rajasthan Agriculture Services (Junior Marketing Officer), especially when in subordinate service. Henceforth, learned counsel averred that the experience of five years was a mandatory requirement for the post reserved for non-gazette employees, applying in State services and not qua the subordinate service. 10. In this regard, counsel representing the respondents had placed reliance upon the following ratio: Sanjay Parihar Vs. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No. 8635/2022 and Nand Kishore Chouhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SBCWP No. 5516/2019. 11. Heard and considered. 12. Upon an assiduous scanning of the record, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the judgments cited at the Bar and taking note of the arguments averred by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court at this juncture, deems it appropriate to jot down indubitable facts. 12.1 That the respondents issued an advertisement dated 20.07.2021, for recruitment of personnel under the Non-TSP (General) area category, under the rules of 1999. 12.2 That the said advertisement invited applications from both State service candidates and Subordinate service candidates. 12.1 That the respondents issued an advertisement dated 20.07.2021, for recruitment of personnel under the Non-TSP (General) area category, under the rules of 1999. 12.2 That the said advertisement invited applications from both State service candidates and Subordinate service candidates. However, the Schedule I and II of the rules of 1999, explicitly states the services qua which selection shall be by direct recruitment for which Combined Competitive Examination (CCE) shall be held: SCHEDULE-I (See Rule 4) Posts in the following State Service to be filled by direct recruitment for which a Combined Competitive Examination shall be held: S. No. Name of Service Posts 21 Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Service Marketing Officer SCHEDULE-II (See Rule 4) S. No. Name of Service Posts 14 Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Junior Marketing Officer 12.3 That for the State service candidates there has been a horizontal reservation in relation to the non-gazette employees (7% seats reserved) as per Schedule-II of the rules of 1999 and qua the departmental/ministerial cadre (only for Subordinate services) candidates (12.5% seats reserved). A special note mentioned in the said advertisement explicitly clarifies the intention of the author. For the sake of brevity the said advertisement is reproduced herein-below: 2. In filling the vacancies so reserved the candidates who are “non-gazatted employees” shall be eligible for appointment in the order in which their names appear in the list irrespective of their relative marks as compared with other candidates. 3. If a sufficient number of candidates who are non-gazetted employees is not available for filling all the vacancies so reserved, the remaining vacancies shall be filled by appointing other candidates in the list.” 12.4 That qua the said selection process provisions of Rajasthan State and Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999, formulated under the provisions enumerated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is applicable. The relevant rule i.e. Rule 4 of the rules of 1999 is reproduced herein-below: “4. Combined Competitive Examination for State and Subordinate Services: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule governing direct recruitment through the agency of the Commission to the posts in State and Subordinate Services mentioned respectively in Schedule I and Schedule II, direct recruitment to such posts shall be made by a Combined Competitive Examination to be conducted by the Commission in in accordance with these Rules. Provided that 7% of the available vacancies in the State Services to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for candidates, who are non-gazetted employees of the Government, Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads. The above reservation shall be determined in accordance with the roster prescribed by the Government. (2) In order to be eligible to compete at the Combined Competitive Examination, an employee referred to in sub-rule (1), must satisfy the following conditions, namely: (i) Educational Qualifications: As prescribed in rule 12 of these Rules. (ii) Age: He must have attained the age of 25 years and must not have attained the age of @ “45 years” on the 1st day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. (iii) Experience: He must have completed not less than five years of service whether officiating or substantive, on the 1st day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. (3) In filling the vacancies so reserved, the candidates who are “non-gazetted employees” shall be eligible for appointment in the order in which their names appear in the list irrespective of their relative marks as compared with other candidates. (4) If a sufficient number of candidates who are non-gazetted employees is not available for filling all the vacancies so reserved, the remaining vacancies shall be filled by appointing other candidates in the list.” 12.5 That beside the aforementioned provisions Rule 11 of the rules of 1999 explicitly provides the appropriate manner that shall be adopted by the recruiting department. A bare perusal of the said provision explicates that the eligibility qua the examination shall be considered in accordance with the provisions enumerated in the rules in that behalf relating to that particular service. The relevant portion of the said provision is reproduced herein-below: “11. Admission to the Examination: (1) Any person may apply to be admitted as a candidate for appearing at the preliminary Examination for any one or more of the Posts/Services specified in the Notice for which he/she is eligible and in such case only one application and one payment of fee shall be sufficient. Admission to the Examination: (1) Any person may apply to be admitted as a candidate for appearing at the preliminary Examination for any one or more of the Posts/Services specified in the Notice for which he/she is eligible and in such case only one application and one payment of fee shall be sufficient. Those of the candidates who qualify at the main examination to be summoned by the Commission for an interview shall be required to indicate in the printed application form their preference for the Posts/Services for which he/she would like to be considered for allotment on the date of interview of the concerned candidates. (2) The eligibility, including factors relating to nationality, and training of a candidate for admission to the examination for appointment to a particular post in a service shall be considered in accordance with the provisions contained in the rules in that behalf relating to that particular service. (3) The applications which are found to be incomplete and have not been filled in accordance with the instruction issued by the Commission shall be rejected by then at the initial stage. The Commission shall permit rest of those candidates to appear in the examination provisionally to whom they considered it proper to grant the certificate of admission. No candidate shall be admitted to an examination unless he holds a certificate of admission to that examination granted by the Commission. Before appearing at the examination, it should be ensured by the candidate ensured by the candidate himself/herself that he/she fulfills the condition in regard to age, education qualifications, experience, if an, etc. as provided in the Rules. Being allowed to take the examination shall not entitle the candidate to presumption of eligibility. The Commission shall scrutinize later on the applications of such candidates only as qualify in the written examination and shall call only the eligible candidates to viva-voice, if any. (4) The decision of the Commission as to the admission of a candidate to an examination, eligibility and consequent admission to viva-voice, if any, shall be final. The Commission shall scrutinize later on the applications of such candidates only as qualify in the written examination and shall call only the eligible candidates to viva-voice, if any. (4) The decision of the Commission as to the admission of a candidate to an examination, eligibility and consequent admission to viva-voice, if any, shall be final. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained about the calculation of age in any rule governing direct recruitment through the agency of the Commission to the post in the State Services and in the Subordinate Services mentioned in Schedule I and Schedule II respectively, the age shall be calculated as on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications.” 13. Considering the aforementioned observations; juxtaposing the averments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides; taking note of the provisions enumerated under the rules of 1999, rules of 2001 and the advertisement dated 20.07.2021 and comprehensively considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant petition for the following reasons: 13.1 That the rule 4 of the rules of 1999 has a notwithstanding clause, and a bare perusal of the said provision simplifies that the recruitment qua the 7% available vacancies in the State service shall be by direct recruitment, and shall only be reserved for the non-gazette employees of the government, Panchayat Samitis, and Zila Parishads. Hence, the possibility of the petitioners’ contention is rendered zilch. 13.2 That the rule 4(2) of the rules of 1999 read with the provisions of rules of 2001 also explicates that there is no mandate for the persons appointed on the post of Junior Marketing Officer, to have an experience for five precursory years. STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING DEPARTMENT SECTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 *1 Junior Marketing Officer @ 100% by Combined Competitive examination in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999, out of which 12.5% of posts shall be reserved for substantive ministerial employees of the Agriculture Marketing Department and Assistant Secretaries, Supervisor & Ministerial staff of the Market Committees. In the event of non-availability of eligible and suitable candidate in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure. In the event of non-availability of eligible and suitable candidate in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure. Qualification as laid down in rule 12 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999. 13.3 That the ratio encapsulated in Lokendra Singh (Supra), has categorically stated that the candidates working on probation are entitled to be appointed in the departmental category candidates, as they have been appointed against a substantive vacancy in the relevant rules. The relevant extract from Lokendra Singh (Supra), is reproduced herein-below: “This Court finds that the Division Bench had considered the similar issue which is involved in the present batch of writ petitions. The petitioner in that case had also participated for the post of Accountant/Junior Accounts/Tehsil Revenue Accountants (TRA) against a direct recruitment quota by the recruitment process held by RPSC as per the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963, however, the parent department of the petitioner where he was working as LDC, did not grant him a certificate that he was substantively appointed. The plea raised by the petitioner was that his appointment was substantive and cancelling of appointment of petitioner was illegal. The Division Bench had held that an employee should be treated as holding a post in substantive capacity and if a person is appointed after due selection even on temporary post, it was to be taken that he is holding the post in substantive capacity. The Court finds that the persons who have undergone the method of making direct recruitment by way of due selection by recruiting agency against substantive vacancies, cannot be treated as not substantively appointed and merely, if no confirmation order was issued, at the time of filing applications, such candidates cannot be rendered ineligible for participating against direct recruitment quota for the post of Junior Accountant to be filled by Ministerial Staff of the department of government. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners eligible against 12.5% posts of Junior Accountant in direct recruitment quota as a Ministerial Staff of the department of government holding a post in the cadre substantively and if the petitioners are found in the merit and are otherwise suitable, their case may be considered for appointment. The said exercise shall be undertake by the State Government within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of this order.” 13.4 That the respondents have filed an additional affidavit wherein, the merit list, and final score sheet qua all the petitioners and private respondents has been exhibited. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have failed to qualify the mains examination under the Departmental Candidate category (cut-off - 162.00) and the respondents have palpably qualified the said examination, under the said category. 13.5 That considering the dictum encapsulated in Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 357 , wherein, it has been apodictically stated that the candidates who themselves have participated in an examination, are estopped from assailing the same at a belated stage. The relevant extract from the said ratio is reproduced herein-below: “18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part, in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. [See Munindra Kumar Vs. Rajiv Govil, and Rashmi Mishra Vs. M.P. Public Service Commission]” 14. Ergo, for the aforementioned reasons, the recruitment made by the respondents is sans arbitrariness and illegality and there seems no palpable error on part of the respondents in considering/complying with the provisions of the rules applicable. 15. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending applications, if any stand disposed of.