1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3525/1996 Hetram & Ors. vs. State & Anr. Date of order : 9/3/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.P. Sharma for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since Rule 284 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 provides that 80% of the vacancies in the posts of Inspector Land Revenue shall be filled by promotion of Patwaris on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and remaining 20% of the vacancies on the basis of competitive examination. Such proportion cannot be applied by the respondents on the cadre strength because the word used in the rule is vacancies and not the cadre strength. Learned counsel referred to the remarks made by the government in proviso to Rule 284 to say that selection of the candidates for admission to the school shall be made in proportion of their respective cadre strength. It was argued that the respective cadre strength does not mean that the 2 proportion of 20% of vacancies set apart for selection on the basis of competitive examination would be reduced thereby. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the very purpose of the amendment brought about by the notification dated 6.5.1995 was this that selection of the candidate for admission in the school at a given point of time should not exceed their quota in the cadre strength. Learned counsel submitted that the rule 284 has therefore been clarified further by inserting first proviso and it is therefore incorrect to say that the respondents have not correctly interpreted the same. It was argued that as against total cadre strength of 1553, 480 Inspector Land Revenue were already working, who had been selected on the basis of competitive examination against the quota of 20% and in fact this strength represented more than 20% of the total cadre strength. Even though Rule 284 in using the word vacancies may not have been happily worded but the proviso below the rule clarified 3 this position that the admission would be restricted in proportion of the cadre strength of the respective categories and therefore, the main rule shall have to be read conjointly with the proviso. Thus viewed, the learned Additional Government Counsel may not be even justified in submitting that 20% quota of the open competitive examination having already exceeded, beyond even 30%, no more admissions to the school could be made in that category. The amendment made in the year 1995 by notification dated 6.5.1995 has been further clarified by subsequent amendment made by notification dated 1.6.2000 to say that “selection of the candidates for admission to the school shall be made in such a manner that persons appointed to the services do not at any time exceed the percentage of the total cadre strength for each category”. In both the notifications, what the rule making authority was intended to say was that selection in the category of open competitive examination should at any point exceed 20% of the cadre strength. No 4 challenge to the validity of either the notification dated 6.5.1995 or 1.6.2000 has been made. In the absence of challenge to the rule or its proviso, it cannot be examined whether the proviso is ultra vires of the main rule itself or outside the scope of main rule. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Dismissal of this writ petition however would not be an impediment for the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition challenging the validity of the above referred to rule or its proviso. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/