9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the year 1956, called 'The Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules 1956' and then another similar set of Rules have been framed in the year 1959, called 'The Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1959'. Emergency recruitment had taken place under the aforesaid two Emergency Recruitment Rules, once in the year 1956 and another in the year 1959. While the appellant has joined the Rajasthan Administrative Service on being recruited under the provisions of Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules of 1954 on 5.6.1975, and is continuing, a set of Rules were framed by the Governor in exercise of power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution on 29.9.1976, called 'T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 7.1.1983. Special appeals were filed against the same to the Division Bench and the Division Bench by the impugned judgment dated 16.5.1997, having upheld the validity of Rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules of 1976 and having affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge the present appeal by grant of Special Leave has been filed. While upholding the validity of Rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules 1976, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court strongly relied upon the judgment of this Court in Anand .Parkash Saksena vs. Union of India and ors. (1968) 2 Supreme Court Reports 611 and K.P. Singhal vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (1995) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification between them made under Rule 25, there has been no intelligible differentia and there is no nexus between providing a notional year of allotment for those who were recruited under the Emergency Recruitment Rules of 1976 with any specific object sought to be achieved and, therefore, Rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules, more particularly, the formula for giving a year of allotment must be struck down. According to Mr. Jain, Rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules, which provided that the year of allotment should be 1976 minus N1 plus half of N2 and both N1 and N2 being dependent upon the factor whether monthly emolument is ₹ 625/- or less than ₹ 625/-, there must be some rationale with the aforesaid fixati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examination that had been fixed and the methodology of selection was undoubtedly different and, therefore, people with less merit could be taken in the service. Such people with inferior qualifications and their suitability having been tested with inferior standard, could not have been granted any premium for their past period during which period they did not have any administrative experience and adjudged from this stand point, the provisions of Rule 25 must be held to be grossly discriminatory and the High Court committed error in upholding the validity of the Rules. At the outset, it may be stated that recruitment to Rajasthan Administrative Service through a special emergency recruitment and to have a statutory rule for such recruit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointment to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the union or of State. It is, thus, apparent that even in the matter of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the founding fathers of the Constitution did make a provision relating to the maintenance of efficiency of administration. In this view of the matter, if any statutory provision provides for a recruitment of a candidate without bearing in mind the maintenance of efficiency of administration such a provision cannot be sustained being against the constitutional mandate. But we are unable to accede to the contention of Mr. Jain that those persons who got recruited to the Rajasthan Administrative Service under the Emergency Recruitment Rules are ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violative of Article 14 cannot be entertained. We record this conclusion of ours, as in course of hearing of this matter. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, had often repeated that the provision of the Emergency Recruitment Rules has permitted even a beetle shop owner with the minimum income as indicated therein to appear and compete at the test and on being selected, the period for which he had been earning the aforesaid amount could be taken into account for the purpose of seniority in the cadre even though there has been no nexus between that period and the service to which he has been recruited. Apart from making such submission on a hypothetical basis, no material has been produced to indicate if anyone of the pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
