AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Case of the writ-petitioners was that the notification inviting applications to fill up 12 posts of Assistant Professor in Anatomy by direct recruitment,
being contrary to the Rules be quashed and the writ-petitioners be considered for grant of promotion to the post of Assistant Professor(Anatomy).
On the pleadings of the parties the admitted position which emerged is that as per the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Service
Rules, 1962, 75% posts of Assistant Professor (Anatomy) have to be filled up by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. Further admitted position
which emerged is that there were 23 cadre posts of Assistant Professor(Anatomy) and thus bifurcating said 23 posts in the ratio 75:25, 17.25 posts
would be allocable to the promotee quota and 5.75 to the direct recruitment quota.
The principle of rounding off would require 17 posts to be allocated for promotion and 6 for direct recruitment.
However, the stand of the respondents is that there is a circular which requires the principle of rounding off to round up the fraction in favour of the
promotee quota. The appellant does not quibble with this. Thus applying the rounding off principle as per the department, 18 posts would be allocable
in the promotee quota and 5 in the direct recruitment quota.
This is the admitted position as per the stand taken by the parties before us in the appeal.
The advertisement in question, requires 70% of the direct recruitment quota posts to be filled up by medicos and the remaining 30% by medicos as
well as non-medicos in order of merit.
With respect to the 5 posts which have to be filed up by direct recruitment, 2 had already been filled up and thus only 3 required to be filled up and
to this extent the advertisement had to be suitably amended.
The writ petition filed by the writ-petitioners who were claiming entitlement under the promotee quota has been disposed of by the learned Single
Judge recording correctly that only 3 posts have to be filled up by direct recruitment.
The learned Single Judge has not clarified as to how the said 3 posts have to be filled up and therefore the appellant who was impleaded as
respondent No.3 has approached the Division Bench.
The afore-noted facts not being in dispute, we proceed on the basis that only 3 posts had to be filled up by direct recruitment.
As per the advertisement and the Rules, 70% of the 3 posts which comes to 2.1 had to be filled up by the medicos and 0.9 from medicos and non-
medicos in order of merit. There is no circular or rule concerning rounding off either in favour of medicos or in favour of medicos/non-medicos
combined category. Thus the ordinary rule of rounding off has to be applied. 2 posts would therefore be required to be filled up from amongst the
medicos and 1 from the combined merit list of medico and non-medico.
We declare accordingly.
We note that the stand of the appellant is that in the seniority list he is at No.1. Being ineligible in the medico category he would be at S.No.1 of
the medico/non-medico category list.
Declaring as above and noting the stand of the appellant we dispose of the appeal requiring the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the
appellant if it is found that in the merit position the appellant is at S.No.1 of the medico/nonmedico category.
At this stage we note that the respondents has already issued a letter offering appointment to the appellant but has made the same subject to
decision in Civil Writ Petition No.250/2017 pending before a learned Single Judge at the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur. Needless to state the
present decision by the Division Bench would bind the learned Single Judge.