Amba Lal Sadhu vs State of Rajasthan and Others

I.S. Israni, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

It is pointed out by Shri S. K. Keshote, learned Counsel that the petitioner is substantive LDC and appeared before RPSC for selection of Junior Accountant in the year 1979, 1981 and 1983 but was not successful. The selections are made 100% by direct recruitment. In the year 1985 Proviso (iii) was added to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 but which 12-1/2% i.e. 63 seats of Junior Accountants were kept reserved for those who were working in substantive capacity in Ministerial Cadre. It is submitted that vide Ex. 1 in the year 1986 application were invited for recruitment to 500 seats of Junior Accountants out of which at the ratio of 12-1/2% i.e. 63 seats were kept reserved for substantive ministerial staff cadre employees. The petitioner appeared in the examination in 1986 and as per result he has obtained 51% marks. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that from the reserved category those who obtained 48% marks, have been selected. How ever, the petitioner has not been selected and the respondent vide Ex. 7 dated 25-7-1989 bus informed the petitioner that since he had already availed three chances for appearing in competitive examination of Junior Accountant prior to 1986, he therefore, could not be given further chance even in the reserved quota. It is contended by learned Counsel that the amended rule no where provides that a Ministerial Staff candidate, who has already availed of 3 chances before the rule was amended, shall not be eligible to appear to have benefit of reserved quota. In this way he is discriminated ignoring the rules, in the same class of employees. It is pointed out that in other rules such provision did exist.

I have heard learned Counsel and also gone through the documents on record.

It is evident from the bare reading of proviso (iii) of Rule 6 of the above mentioned Rules that a further facility has now been given of 12-1/2% reserved quota for the employees of substantive Ministerial Staff Cadre but his has not been made available to such candidates who have already availed of three chances before the amendment come-in-force. If this is interpretation is accepted, candidates like petitioner will get 6 chances, whereas, those appearing after amendment will get only 3 chares. This will result in discrimination in same class of candidates and not otherwise, as contended by the learned Counsel. The contention of learned Counsel that since there is no express bar be should be permitted to appear has no force. The provision shall be read as it is.

I do not find any force in this petition, which is, therefore, dismissed in limine.