IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. 1226 OF 1997 OM PRAKASH V/S STATE & ORS. Mr. M.S.SINGHVI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. B.L.BHATI, for the respondent State. Mr. TARUN JOSHI, for the respondent. Date of Order : 3.12.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal is filed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 01.09.1997, dismissing the writ petition. Perusal of the impugned order shows that three writ petitions were filed involving identical question, however, appeal has been filed in one case only. Be that as it may, the brief facts are, that the Public Service Commission issued the advertisement, advertising 156 posts of Junior Agriculture Teachers in the Education Department, for various categories of candidates. This advertisement was issued on 23.08.1989, while the process of selection was going on, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1255/1990 Radhey Shyam Vs. State came to be filed before this Court at Jaipur Bench, wherein on 07.05.1990, an interim order was passed, directing that RPSC shall be free to conduct the examination for recruitments to the post of Junior Lecturer (Agriculture), but 78 vacancies would not be filled without obtaining permission of the Court. Thereafter, the writ petition was decided vide judgement dated 22.01.1991, whereby, the writ petition was allowed, entry in Column 3 against Item No. 7 of Section F of the Schedule, providing for filling the posts, 100% by direct recruitment, was held invalid. However, it was clarified, that this declaring the entry to be invalid, will not debar the State Government from making appointments from the merit list sent by the Commission, and further list, which may be sent in lieu of the order, then a direction was given to the Competent Authority to amend the entry of Column 3 against Item No. 7 of Section F of the Schedule, in light of the observation made in the judgement, and provide some quota/ratio, reasonable for filling the post of Junior Agriculture Teacher by promotion from amongst Teacher Grade II in Agriculture also. Certain other directions were also given. The case of the petitioner is, that in view of the interim order, and the final order, the Commission was required to prepare the select list of all the 156 candidates, as the restriction was only against the appointment of 78 posts, but then, the Commission was not required to prepare the selection list of 78 candidates only, placing the remaining candidates in reserve list. According to the petitioner, if the right course would have been adopted by preparing the list of all the 156 candidates, then in view of the directions given in the decision of Radhey Shyam's case, the State would have taken steps, by appropriately amending the Column 3 against Item No. 7 of Section F of the Schedule, and in that event, the petitioner could also be appointed, while according to the reply given in this writ petition, the petitioner's claim for appointment is being contested, only on the ground, that the petitioner's name finds place in the reserve list, and the candidate who figures in the reserve list does not have a legal right, capable of being enforced under Article 226, to be given appointment. According, to the learned counsel, thus, the petitioner has been wrongly deprived of being given the appointment. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the judgement in Radhey Shyam's case also, copy whereof was made available for our perusal by the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned judgement, and the pleadings of the parties. In our view, of course, this is one of the stand taken by the State, that since the petitioner was figuring in the reserve list, he cannot not force the state to operate that list, so as to appoint the petitioner, but then, that is the end of the matter, inasmuch as, in para 9, a positive stand has been taken, to the effect that since the Hon’ble Court has ordered to fill in only 50% of the vacancies by direct recruitment and accordingly 50% of the vacancies advertised have been filled in by direct recruitment and rest have been earmarked for promotion and since the petitioner did not figure in the merit list, amongst the 78 candidates, so as to fall within the merit of the candidates up to the said 50% therefore, the petitioner could not appointed. Significantly, it is not the case of the petitioner, that any appointments have been made beyond 78, i.e. being 50% of the advertised vacancies. In that view of the matter, the mere fact, that irrespective of the nomenclature of the list, wherein the petitioner figures, as to whether is called as reserved list or the merit list, is hardly of any material consequence in the present case, and is only hyper technical aspect, and does not materially effect of the merit of the case. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has found, that since, the remaining 78 vacancies are continuing for recruitment by promotion, and those, who were temporarily posted, were also continued according to the ratio in Radhey Shyam's case. Thus the directions given in Radhey Shyam's case are satisfied, and it cannot be said, that the respondents have acted in any arbitrary or malafide manner, rather they have acted in conformity with the directions given in Radhey Shyam's case. In our view, it cannot be said that learned Single Judge had committed any error, in arriving at the above conclusions, so as to require any interference in the appeal. Admittedly only 78 appointments have been made by direct recruitment. Thus, the appeal has no force and is therefore, dismissed. ( MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. preety