1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4987/2007 Rajendra Singh Jatav & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order: 19.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. KK Shah, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Joshi, for the respondent-RPSC. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner took chance to get appointment in the Rajasthan Judicial Services in the Examination conducted in the year 2005. The total 85 vacancies were advertised on 19th Nov., 2005 out of which 58 were to be filled in by general category candidates, 27 posts were reserved out of which 11 were reserved for SC candidates, 16 for the ST candidates. 10 posts reserved for the ST category remained unfilled. According to learned counsel for the petitioner these unfilled vacancies were required to be filled in as per para no.3 of the Schedule 2 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1995 by normal procedure. For these 9 unfilled posts after de-reservation, 7 posts were given to the candidates of general category, one to SC category candidate and one to the OBC. Therefore, out of 10, 9 2 posts were filled in, whereas one remained unfilled. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner no.1 got the appointment in out of 9 above referred appointment and, therefore, the cause of petitioner no.2 only is surviving. The contention of petitioner no.2 is that petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 both were the candidates in the SC category and both secured same marks and petitioner no.1 has been appointed and there is one post unfilled, therefore, the petitioner no.2 is also entitled to the appointment in the cadre of Rajsthan Judicial Services. However, such plea was not taken by the petitioner in the writ petition. It appears that this ground has been developed by the petitioner subsequently. Learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC submitted that the petitioner proceeded on wrong assumption. According to him it is true that out of 16 posts of ST category only 6 were filled in and 10 remained unfilled. After consultation with the High Court, the State Government decided to de-reserve only 7 seats and therefore, 7 seats were available to be filled in by adopting the general process of selection which means to offer the posts to the candidates in accordance with the merit. The respondents found that one of the candidate in the SC category was also eligible for appointment because of his 3 standing in the merit so as to leave one seat for SC candidate. Against that only the petitioner no.1 who was at S.No.23 in the merit list was given appointment. One of the candidates in the category of OBC did not join, therefore, next in the merit of the category of OBC candidates was given appointment. The petitioner assumed that out of 10 vacancies, 7 were filled in by general mode and one was given to SC and one was given to OBC and, therefore, one remained unfilled and, therefore is seeking his appointment against that unfilled last vacancy which is no.10 according to the petitioner which is factually wrong. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the facts it is clear that total 10 vacancies were not de-reserved as stated by learned counsel for the respondent, but only 7 vacancies were re-determined. One of the candidate in the category of SC secured sufficient marks to get his appointment in regular selection, therefore, one candidate who happened to be petitioner no.1 and who was just above the petitioner no.2 in merit got the appointment in regular cadre and not against the de-reserved vacancies. One OBC candidate did not join the service, therefore one of the OBC candidate was given appointment. Since the petitioner no.2's candidature was 4 just below the name of the petitioner no.1, but he has no sufficient marks to enter into the service in general category, therefore, he was not entitled to appointment even when the appointment was given to the petitioner no.1. The petitioner since was not eligible to be appointed in 7 de-reserved vacancies, therefore also, the petitioner cannot get the appointment on this count also. Consequently, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA],J. cpgoyal/-