IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B.CIVIL WRITS NO. 19263 / 2015

ABDUL RAUF

----Petitioner

Versus

STATE (AYURVED DEPARTMENT)ANR

AHLUWALIA

Judgment

29/11/2016

Ayurved and Indian Medicine Department, Government of Rajasthan, on 1.6.2013, issued an advertisement No.2/2013 (hereinafter called as 'First Advertisement') for recruitment to the post of 308 Unani Medical Officer (Unani Chikitsak Adhikari). A candidate had to fill his application form online and deposit fee of Rs.2,500/-. A month, thereafter, on 1.7.2013, Ayurved and Indian Medical Department, Government of Rajasthan issued another advertisement bearing No.5/2013 (hereinafter called as 'Second Advertisement') and invited applications for recruitment to 50 posts of Unani Medical Officer (Unani Chikitsa Adhikari).

Mr. Abdul Rauf, petitioner to SBCWP No.19263/2015, according to Mr. Abhijeet Verma appearing on behalf of Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, had only applied in pursuance of First Advertisement. Dr. Hassan Hamid, petitioner no.1 to SBCWP No.10030/2015 also applied in pursuance of the First Advertisement, whereas, Dr. Mohammad Tariq, the petitioner no.2 to SBCWP No.10030/2015 had applied qua both the advertisements.

Mr. Tanveer Ahmed and Mr. Abhijeet Verma, counsel for the petitioners, have contended that even though the respondents invited applications for 308 posts of Unani Medical Officer (Unani Chikitsa Adhikari) in the Fist Advertisement, the Government had recruited only 93 persons and other posts were left vacant. It is further contended that qua the Second Advertisement, out of 50 posts advertised, respondents have only recruited 37 persons as Unani Medical Officer (Unani Chikitsa Adhikari) and thus, the action of the respondents not to fill all the posts advertised, is bad in the eye of law. It is also contended that there was no justification for the State Government to issue two separate advertisements. It is further contended that the merit of the petitioner is higher than the last cut off in the merit list prepared

(2 of 5)

for the recruitment of candidates in pursuance of the Second Advertisement.

Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners has questioned the rationality of the Government to issue two separate advertisements and not to fill all the posts. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have acted arbitrarily.

Mr. Parikshit Singh, Dy. Government Counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to Para-8 of the reply filed in SBCWP No.10030/2015. It will be apposite here to reproduce the Para-8 as under:-

"8.With regard to Paragraph No.9 of the Writ Petition the Respondents submit that it is the discretion of the State Government to increase and/or reduce the advertisement post sanctioned by the State Government and the said reduction of the posts has been sanction by the State Government. Thereafter, the State Respondent issued a provision merit list dated 15.06.2015, wherein with regard to the First Advertisement (No.2/2013), 93 candidates were selected and with regard to Second Advertisement (No.5/2013), 37 candidates were selected. Thereafter, the State Respondent, issued an appointment order dated 12-08-2015 against the advertisement (No.02/2013) and 01-06-2013 and subsequently in compliance to the order dated 23-11-2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the Writ Petition (No.6988/2015) Asad Saeed V/s State of Rajasthan, the State Respondent published a fresh appointment order dated 05-01-2016, whereby previously appointed candidates were removed in the said appointment order. A copy of the provision merit list dated

[CW-19263/2015]

15.06.2015, appointment order dated 12-08- 2015 and 05-01-2016 is annexed hereto and marked as "Annexure R/2 (colly)."

The learned counsel for the respondents has stated that initially Government had only issued advertisement for recruitment of 308 posts of Unani Medical Officer (Unani Chikitsa Adhikari), and subsequently, on the orders passed by this Court, the State Government had issued Second Advertisement. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is prerogative of the State Government and it can always reduce the number of vacancies and leave the posts advertised vacant if human resource talent is not commensurate to the expectations of the State Government.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court agree with contention raised by the learned counsel for the State that it is prerogative of the State Government to reduce the vacancies. To this settled proposition, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners has no quarrel. In the present case it is not the stand of the petitioners that the State Government for some mala fide reasons or to oust the petitioners has reduced the vacancies advertised. No allegation of mala fide has been levelled. The State Government due to its administrative exigencies can reduce the number of vacancies as it has to take various factors into consideration, like financial implications, reduction in budget or non-availability of human resource talent. The State Government has to maintain purity and quality in the recruitment of the public officials. There is no vested right in the petitioners they must be and ought to have been recruited.

(4 of 5)

[CW-19263/2015]

This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere in the prerogative of the State Government to reduce the vacancies advertised until some allegation of mala fide is discernible.

Consequently, there is no merit in the present writ petitions and hence, both the petitions are dismissed.

(5 of 5)