CW 9483/07 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9483/07 Kajor Lal Bairwa Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 12/08/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Bhaskar Dagar, for petitioner Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for RPSC *** Petitioner who is member of SC Category applied for the post of Lecturer [Urdu] in pursuance of advertisement issued by the RPSC. Two vacancies were advertised out of which one was reserved for SC and another for ST, but as per note No.1 appended thereto both were backlog vacancies available prior to 10th October, 2002 and it is relevant to mention that omnibus amendment was made by the State Government on 10th October, 2002 substituting sub-rule (4) to R.7 of Rajasthan College Education Service Rules, 1986 according to which the vacancies which are reserved for the members of SC/ST and if members are not made available, vacancies shall not be de-reserved and in exigency the authority can seek permission from the government to fill the reserved vacancy on urgent temporary basis, till members of reserved category are made available but since amendment made effective from 10th October, 2002 question arose as to what will happen to the vacancies available prior thereto. CW 9483/07 [2] This position was clarified by the government while issuing circular on 22nd June, 2004 in regard to backlog vacancies reserved for SC/ST prior thereto if members of SC/ST are not available the same can be filled by adopting normal procedure as per pre-amended R.7(4) of the Rules. The screening test was conducted by the Commission and petitioner being one of eligible candidate also appeared in the screening test was declared successful and called for interview, but since these are backlog vacancies members of SC/ST category were not found suitable by the Commission thus normal procedure was adopted and two applicants found suitable and selected by the Commission, were placed in the main list and one in the waiting list. It has been informed to this court both the two applicants who are in the main seat their names were recommended to the government for appointment and reserved list was never operated upon and that being so, by passage of time it has now elapsed. Basic grievance of petitioner is that he is eligible in all respect and being member of reserved category it is onerous duty of the Commission to first consider the members of reserved category and thus, making selection by CW 9483/07 [3] adopting normal procedure that too after amendment made w.e.f. 10th October, 2002 it was all the more necessary for them to consider the members of reserved category on priority basis so that object of the amendment to the Constitution could have been achieved by considering them for appointment. Counsel for respondent submits that members of reserved category including petitioner were called for interview, but no one was found suitable thus normal procedure was adopted in terms of pre-amended Rule 7(4) of Rules, 1986. Since amendment dt.10/10/02 was prospective and clarification to this effect was made by the government on 22nd June, 2004 and accordingly, available vacancies were filled as per normal procedure and merely because the petitioner was eligible that will not give him a right of being finally selected for the post in question. This fact cannot be ruled out that once the vacancies are reserved for SC/ST, it is always expected to first consider the members of reserved category for filling such reserved vacancies, but at the same time, if the members of reserved category are not found suitable by the Commission and if these are backlog vacancies available prior to 10th October, 2002 the same CW 9483/07 [4] cannot be kept reserved for indefinite period and certainly can be filled by adopting normal procedure. So far as grievance of petitioner being eligible and consideration could have been made on priority basis, is of no substance since no one can claim right of seeking appointment merely on the premise of his eligibility and it is always for the Commission to adjudge suitability amongst eligible applicants. This court does not find any error committed by the Commission in adopting normal procedure while making final selection. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA9483CW2007 12-8.doc