(1) Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.665/2008. (Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER : August 19, 2008 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas _______________________________ Mr. Sanjay Mathur for petitioner. Mrs. R.R. Kanwar, Dy. Govt. Counsel. BY THE COURT : In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to provide 45% reservation to the members of the scheduled tribe in the district Udaipur. Further, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to issue fresh merit list of the Udaipur district on district-wise basis as mentioned in the notification dated 12.09.2007 for the candidates of the area belonging to the scheduled tribe of the scheduled area for the posts of Junior Ayurvedic Nurse/Compounder in pursuance of the advertisement Annex.-3. The main contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to the area which is scheduled area as per the notification issued by the State Government for which reservation has been provided (2) Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others upto 45% for the scheduled tribe candidates. The petitioner being resident of Tehsil Kherwada submits that as per notification dated 12.02.1981 and notification dated 12.09.2007 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for the area notified as scheduled area of Udaipur, the reservation was to be granted. As per the petitioner, Phalasia, Kherwara, Kotra, Sarada, Salumber and Lasadia tehsils in Udaipur were declared scheduled areas therefore in respect of the vacancies of that area reservation upto 45% to the scheduled tribe candidates and 5% to the scheduled caste candidates of the said local area need be given in the direct recruitment which has not been done. By way of filing reply, it is pointed out by the respondents that the recruitments have been made as per the provisions of law and reservation to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe of the scheduled area has already been given. During the course of arguments, a specific query was made by this Court whereby respondents were directed to file additional affidavit clarifying as to how many vacancies were in existence at the time of issuance of the notification for appointment to the posts of Junior Ayurvedic Nurse/Compounder vide notification dated 15.09.2007. Further, the officer-in- (3) Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others charge was directed to inform the Court with regard to existence of the vacancies in the scheduled area. Today, in pursuance of the direction given by this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the officer in-charge in which it is specifically stated that for the Udaipur district, 37 posts were advertised vide advertisement dated 15.09.2007. Out of the said 37 posts, as per roster, 16 posts come out to be earmarked for the ST candidates of Udaipur taking into account 45% reservation in their favour. It is also mentioned that some areas of Udaipur have been notified as scheduled area and the State Government by way of issuing notification dated 12.09.2007 has provided 45% reservation and in order to reach just calculation, the percentage of ST category persons which is based on 2001 census and since the representation of scheduled tribe category so far as scheduled area of Udaipur district is concerned is 24.50%, therefore, out of 16 reserved vacancies the percentage of 24.50 comes to 3.93 posts; meaning thereby, 4 vacancies are available in favour of the local scheduled tribe candidates of scheduled area of Udaipur. Accordingly, the appointments were made of the scheduled tribe candidates of the scheduled area. It is submitted in the affidavit that there is no illegality in (4) Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others providing appointment as per rules and, after following the roster and notification dated 12.09.2007, the appointments were made in accordance with law. Against the said additional affidavit filed by the officer in- charge, the petitioner has filed counter-affidavit in which, again, it is reiterated that appointments were not given after due determination of the vacancies for the scheduled area as per notification dated 12.02.1981 and notification dated 12.09.2007, therefore, the direction as prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition need be issued. I have considered the rival submissions made before me and perused the entire record of the case. I am of the opinion that there are disputed questions of fact involved in this writ petition based upon record of the respective parties. Therefore, in the interest of justice, when it is admitted by the respondents that there is provision for reservation upto 45% of the vacancies for the scheduled tribe of the local area being scheduled area, then, obviously it is for the respondent to determine and calculate the vacancies and provide appointment after determination of the vacancies of the said area. In the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated on oath that after due determination of the vacancies the (5) Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others appointments have been provided against the reservation provided as per notification dated 12.09.2007 in the scheduled area of Udaipur district. Therefore, in my opinion, no interference is required in this case by this Court because it is for the Department to determine the vacancies for the scheduled tribe of the scheduled area of Udaipur district which has already been done and, if any error is committed by the respondents, then, the petitioner is to point out specifically which is not done by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, while dismissing this writ petition, a liberty is granted to the petitioner that if, still, the petitioner has any grievance with regard to determination of the vacancies of ST local candidates for appointment in the scheduled area of Udaipur district, then, he may file representation to the respondents and raise specific ground. Upon filing of such representation, if any, it is expected of the respondents to examine on the basis of record and decide in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing of the representation. No order as to costs. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.