1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT
The State of Raj. vs. Rughnathram & ors. & anr D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.1242/2014 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Article 125 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.4.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10187/2008. Date of Judgment :
10. 7.2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR. Dr. Pratistha Dave, for the petitioners. Mr. A.K.Rajvanshy, for the respondents BY THE COURT:(Per Hon'ble Ms. Jaishree Thakur,J.) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16.4.2014.
2. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 44 days in filing the appeal has been preferred. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the matter is being disposed of finally on merits.
3. The respondent filed a writ petition claiming that he was working as Class IV Employee in the department of Revenue since 27.11.1995. Vide a Notification/Advertisement dated 11.7.2008, the 2 Rajasthan Public Service Commission invited applications from eligible candidates for the selection of candidates for admission to Patwar School. As per rule 273 under Chapter III of the Rajasthan Land Revenue(Land Records) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules of 1957'), selections of candidates for admission to Patwar School was laid down. As per the Rules, 10% quota was fixed for Class IV Employees. The petitioner challenged the said Advertisement/ Notification on the ground that it did not provide 10% quota to be reserved for seats for Class IV Employees working in the department who should be considered for being sent to Patwar School. The petitioner sought to question impugned Notification/Advertisement dated 11.7.2008 and also sought a a direction that respondents should comply strictly with the provisions of rule 273 of the Rules of 1957 and notify reserved seats for Class IV Employees in the department .
4. The appellants respondents herein filed reply and submitted that Rule 273 of the Rules of 1957 was deleted on 9.1.2007. The vacancies were advertised in the year 2008 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission after deleting sub-rule (1) of rule 273 of the Rules of 1957 in which 10% vacancies of 3 Patwaris were to be kept reserved for promotion from Class IV Employees. It was contended that it is the domain of the government to change any service condition at any time and by doing so, Rule 273 of the Rules of 1957 was amended and the reservation of 10% quota provided for Class IV Employees was withdrawn. Accordingly the notification dated advertising was legal and valid since there was no requirement to keep 10% vacancies to be reserved for Class IV employees.
5. The matter came up for hearing and stood disposed of in terms of the order passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1178/2009-Parsan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & ors. A perusal of the judgment passed in Parsan Singh's case(supra), reveals the petitioner had sought the following reliefs;_ “ (i) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Patwaris against the 10% quota as per the rule 273 which were prevailing before 9.1.2007. (ii) The annex. P/6 may kindly be declared illegal so far as is relates to filing the vacancy relating to the year 1999-2006 by the amended rule 273 of the Rules, 1957. (iii) The rule 273(1) of the Rules 1957 may kindly be struck down and the same be declared ultra-virus.”
. 4 6. In the said writ petition of Parsan Singh, the petitioner had challenged the action of the respondents in advertising all the unfilled vacancies which were in existence till the year 2008 without adhering to unamended rule 273(1) of the Rules of 1957 which provided for 10% seats to be kept reserved for Class IV employees. for promotion on the post of Patwaris. The petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not determining the vacancies upto the date on which the existing rule was deleted and filling them up under the amended rules.
7. The learned Single Judge admitted the claim of the petitioner and held that the petitioner would be entitled for consideration against 10% quota of promotion against the vacancies which had accrued prior to the amendment in rule 273 of the Rules of 1957 which came into effect on 1.9.2007. Further a direction was given to the State to determine the vacancies of Patwaris till the deletion of the rule and after determination of the vacancies for promotion against 10% quota and to consider the case of the petitioner as per his eligibility for promotion on the post of Patwari.
8. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by 5 Rughnathram (respondent herein) in the present appeal.
9. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that when rule 273(1) of the Rules of 1957 stands amended by Notification dated 1.9.2007, the writ petitioner (respondent-herein) would not be entitled to any relief because reservation of 10% of total vacancies of post of Patwaris for appointment from Class IV Employees of the Land Revenue(Land Records) Department was no longer available to them.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.
11. Rule 273(1) of the Rules of 1957 is reproduced here:-
“273. Selection of candidate for admission to the school.-(1) Selection of candidates for admission to the School shall be made by a Competitive Examination to be conducted by the Board in the manner given thereunder: Provided that 10% of the total vacancies of the posts of Patwaris shall be reserved for appointment of Class IV employees of the Land Revenue(Land Records) department who have passed the High School Examination and are substantive Class IV Servants and who qualify in the examination to the conducted by the Collector. If suitable hands are not available, the vacancies so reserved need not be carried forward but shall be filled from other selected candidates as usual:
6. Provided further that out of the total number of vacancies for direct recruitment in a district, 80% of the vacancies shall be filled from candidates who are residents of the districts as indicated in the certificate of secondary school examination and 20% vacancies shall be filled from general candidates. A candidate shall be required to indicate clearly the district and vacancies for which he intends to apply. If a candidate intends to apply against 20% vacancies he shall indicate the same in his application. After examination, if the said 80% vacancies reserved for residents of the district are not filled, the same may be filled from amongst the successful candidates who have passed the examination against 20% vacancies from general candidates, selection shall be made on the basis of merit of the successful candidates who have given option against 20% vacancies.”
. This rule 273(1) was subsequently amended, which reads as under:- “The existing sub-rule (1) shall be substituted by the following:- “(1) Selection of candidate for admission to the School shall be made by a competitive examination to be conducted by the commission.”. 12. Till 9.1.2007, the Rules provided for 10% of total vacancies of the post of Patwaris to be kept reserved for appointment of Class IV Employees of the Land Revenue(Land Records) Department who 7 have passed the High School Examination and who have qualified in the examination to be considered for promotion to the post of Patwaris. Admittedly, last appointment made to the post of Patwari was in the year 1999 and thereafter no vacancies were available.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy this Court as to why the vacancies for the period from 1999 to 2007 were not determined and notified. There can be no doubt about the proposition of law that vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not by the amended Rules. The respondent and others similarly situated had a vested right under the un- amended Rule 273 of Rules of 1957, and no statutory rule or administrative order can whittle down or destroy any right which has become crystallized . As per the un-amended Rule 273 of Rules of 1957, 10% reservation for promotion to the post of Patwaris had been reserved for Class IV Employees and the action of the government in including all the available vacancies prior to 9.1.2007 in the said advertisement is wholly untenable. It was obligatory on the part of the Department and the appellant herein to have 8 determined year-wise vacancies which arose prior to the amendment and reservation of 10% of those vacancies to be kept for promotion from Class IV Employees. The learned Single Judge rightly gave a direction to determine the vacancies of the Patwaris till the deletion and amendment of rule on 1.9.2007.
14. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1178/2009. Hence this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (JAISHREE THAKUR),J (GOVIND MATHUR),J.
mlt.