DBCWP11942/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11942/2010 Mukesh Kumar Sawariya Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 21.10.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prem Shanker Asopa Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Rajendra Soni, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court (Per Hon'ble Mohammad Rafiq, J.): This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Mukesh Kumar Sawariya praying that result of Rajasthan Judicial Service Competitive Examination, 2008 declared by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, on 06.08.2010 and published in daily newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' dated 07.08.2010, may be declared illegal in so far as it relates to placing petitioner in reserve-list instead of selecting him against twelve left out posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidates, and that respondents be directed to select and appoint him on the post in cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Service with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Rajendra Soni, while relying on judgment of DBCWP11942/2010 // 2 // Supreme Court in K.H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others – 2007 (3) SLR 1, argued that Supreme Court in that case of Kerala Judicial Service held that non-availability of eligible reserved candidates of a particular category, the vacancy may be offered to another category of reserved category. In this case, petitioner is a member of Scheduled Castes and he should not be kept in reserve list rather he should have been appointed against twelve unfilled posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidates, which were left out on account of non- availability of eligible candidates of that category. Learned counsel submitted that Supreme Court in K.H. Siraj, supra, issued aforesaid direction because there was no rule enabling the authorities to carry forward reservation. In Rule 9 of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (for short, 'the Rules of 1955') also there is no provision for carrying forward unfilled vacancy of a particular reserved category, therefore, the ratio of aforesaid judgment in K.H. Siraj's case should be applied to present case. We find ourselves unable to agree with submission made by learned counsel for petitioner because argument proceeds on misreading of Rule 9 of Rules of 1955. Said Rule DBCWP11942/2010 // 3 // was amended by Government Notification dated 19.09.1998 whereby it was provided that such vacancies which remain so unfilled shall be carried forward to the subsequent three years in total and thereafter such reservation would lapse. In view of fact that there is a provision in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1955 to carry forward unfilled vacancy of a particular reserved category viz. SC or ST, for a period of three years, ratio of judgment in K.H. Siraj does not apply to the facts of present case. We find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. //Jaiman//