139 of 1997 for quashing the said numberification dated 21.12.1996 on the ground that the said number of posts were number available for direct recruitment.
Also besides this, three posts were available on deputation either at the High Court Registry or the State government and other autonomous bodies.
She stood 8th in the merit list of the selection.
Besides this, there were 5 family companyrts and 18 other Tribunals and Courts expected to be manned by RHJS officers available.
The said writ petition was heard along with DB C Special Appeal No.
On 31.7.1992, 17 direct recruits and 66 promotees were occupying posts in RHJS on substantive basis whereas a total of 167 officers were working in the posts of RHJs level including those appointed on substantive basis, officiating basis and ad hoc basis.
It referred to the number of posts manned by members of RHJS as under We had directed the learned companynsel for the High Court to submit before us date wise charts showing the vacancy position from time to time.
District and Sessions Judges, 30 posts of RHJS level, 5 Consumer fora, 21 posts in Tribunals and Boards, 39 posts for deputation to the Registry and the State Government, 32 posts in companysumer fora, totalling 219 were available, 167 officers were posted to man them.
CA No.
Hence, the writ petition of Veena Verma was rejected as she was 8th in the merit list.
Thus, the total companyrts available for being manned by the RHJS Officers by 31.7.1992 were 176.
Special Appeal No.
It was also stipulated in the advertisement that the number of posts companyld be increased.
They companytended that ad hoc and temporary posts were being companynted and added to the sanctioned strength of RHJS service to create more posts for direct recruits.
The total companyrts available for members of RHJS officers were 110.
Similarly, when 219 posts, which companyld be filled in by appointment from the member of the RHJS were available as on 31.10.1994, only 203 officers were posted to man them.
But by the impugned judgment dated 30.4.1999, the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court and directed the High Court to determine the number of vacancies as on 31.10.1994, and if the vacancies were more than seven, then companysider Veena Verma for the post in RHJS.
The position which emerges is that at the relevant time, the number of posts in the RHJS mentioned in Schedule I to the Rules was 89 only against which factually more than 200 persons were holding posts which were expected to be manned by members of the RHJS.
On the date of the advertisement the position was that 20 direct recruits and 63 promotees were working in the RHJS on substantive basis whereas the total number of officers manning the posts of RHJS level was 204.
The statistics produced by the High Court further shows that on 31.7.1992, 31 Courts of District and Sessions Judges, 56 Courts of Addl.
5701/2000 Vide a Notification dated 21.12.1996, applications were invited for appointment to eleven posts of RHJS by direct recruitment.
Veena Verma challenged the order of the learned Singh Judge in DB.
In her petition she claimed that she was entitled to be declared selected and appointed as on a companyrect calculation, the vacancies for direct recruitment in the RHJS in accordance with the applicable rules came to 10 and number 7, and the petitioner being the 8 th selected candidate was entitled to appointment against the post.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by judgment dated 30.3.1998.
5699/2000 an Advocate practicing in Ajmer, who was a candidate for direct recruitment in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service RHJS for short .
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. A. Nos.
The appellant and certain other Chief Judicial Magistrates filed WP No.
District and Sessions Judges and 23 Courts, which have to be manned by Officers of the level of members of RHJS were available in the State.
An advertisement dated 31.10.1994 was published by the High Court inviting applications for being companysidered for appointment in the RHJS against 7 vacancies including the two vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and one vacancy for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe.
The learned Single Judge observed that numberincrease in the vacancies was ordered or effected by the High Court and, therefore, when there were only 28 vacancies in the RHJS, 7 was the maximum posts that companyld be filled by direct recruitment.
CA No.
5700 is by a promotee Judicial Officer.
Civil Writ Petition No.
5699/2000, 5702/2000 5700/2000 These appeals are directed against the judgment order of the Rajasthan High Court dated 30.4.1999 in D.B. Special Civil Appeal No.
5699/2000 is filed by the High Court of Rajasthan, C.A. No.5702/2000 is by State of Rajasthan and C.A. No.
410/1998.
4580/1996 was filed in the Rajasthan High Court by Ms. Veena Verma, first respondent in CA No.
