AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Three issues are urged at the hearing today in the appeals and the contesting respondents being the same notice was issued in D.B.S.A.W.334/2017. The respondents are served. Mr.Tarun Joshi Advocate has filed a "Vakalatnama" on behalf of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, which is the effective contesting party and has been heard.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 24.06.2013 inviting application from eligible candidates to fill up various posts in the State of Rajasthan.
The advertisement recorded that 12.5% posts would be filled up for ex-servicemen and the tabular statement of the total posts in the different services and the number reserved was indicated as under:-
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
The first contention advanced is that total posts advertised were 644 and 12.5% thereof would come to 80.5 and applying a principle of rounding off, the posts to be reserved would be 81 and not 72.
The stand of the Rajasthan Public Service is that reservation had not to be calculated with reference to 644 posts which were notified but had to be calculated with reference to the posts in different departments.
The learned Single Judge has accepted said stand, but unfortunately has overlooked the fact that even as per the stand of the respondent reservation of the posts for ex-servicemen has been wrongly computed.
From the tabular chart aforenoted, we find that Serial No.1, 18 posts were notified to be filled up in Rajasthan Subordinate Devsthan Services. 12.5% of 18 comes to 2.25 and applying rounding off, 2 posts had to be reserved for ex-servicemen and not 1.
At Serial No.4, 13 posts were indicated to be filled up for Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services. 12.5% of 13 would be 1.625 and applying rounding off 2 posts had to be reserved for ex-servicemen and not 1.
At Serial No.7, 133 posts have been notified to be filled up in Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services. 12.5% of 133 works out to 16.625 and applying rounding off 17 posts had to be reserved for ex-servicemen and not 16.
At Serial No.9, 14 posts have been notified to be filled up in Rajasthan Women & Child Development Subordinate Services. No post has been shown as reserved for ex-servicemen. 12.5% of 14 comes to 1.75, and thus applying rounding off of 2 posts had to be reserved for ex-servicemen.
At Serial No.10, 15 posts were to be filled up in Social Justice & Empowerment Subordinate Service (Probation & Jail Welfare Officer). 12.5% of 15 comes to 1.875 and applying rounding off 2 posts had to be reserved for ex-servicemen and not 1.
At Serial No.11, 238 posts had to be filled up in Social Justice & Empowerment Subordinate Service (Social Welfare Officer). 12.5% of 238 is 29.75 and applying rounding off, 30 posts had to be reserved for ex-servicemen and not 28.
At Serial No.12, 151 posts in Labour Subordinate Service were notified. 12.5% of 151 is 18.815 and applying rounding off posts to be reserved would be 19 and not 18.
Under the circumstances it had to be declared by the learned Single Judge that posts at Serial No.1 and 4 to be reserved for ex-servicemen would be 2 each and not 1 each. The posts at Serial No.7 had to be 17 and not 16. The post at Serial No.9 could not be
Nil. It had to be 2. For the post at Serial No.10, not 1 but 2 posts said to be reserved. For the post at Serial No.11, 30 posts and not 28 had to be reserved. For the post at Serial No.12, 19 and not 18 posts had to be reserved.
We order accordingly, directing the respondents to accord benefit of reservation for ex-servicemen as declared above in para
14.
The second contention advanced is that an ex-serviceman is defined in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-servicemen) Rules, 1988 and that some persons were being considered for appointment as ex-servicemen who did not fall within the definition of "ex-servicemen".
This aspect has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge and we are not inclined to deal with this issue for the reason the persons who allegedly are being treated as ex-servicemen and as per the appellants are not entitled to be treated as ex-servicemen had not been impleaded as respondents.
If the petitioners have any grievance on their issue they may resort to a separate remedy after impleading the said persons.
The third grievance raised is that ex-servicemen not residing in the State of Rajasthan are also being given benefit of reservation. The said persons have not been impleaded as respondents and in their absence the issue cannot be given into.
The writ appeals are disposed of declaring and directing as above in para 14 pertaining to the number of posts to be reserved for ex-servicemen in different categories.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission would now do the needful within six weeks from today.