HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN versus VEENA VERMA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 795 · Decided: 07-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 795 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN 
v. 
VEENA VERMA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5699 of 2000) 
JULY 7, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
8 
Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969: rr.6, 9 - c 
Strength of service - Under r. 6(2), the strength of service may 
be varied by the Governor in consultation with High Court -
Without specific order, the strength cannot be increased -
Inclusion of words in the advertisement that "the number of 
posts is likely to increase" would not mean that appointment 0 
was intended for more posts than advertised - On facts, since 
only 7 posts were advertised, only 7 appointments could be 
made - Judicial service. 
An advertisement for appointment in the Rajasthan 
Higher Judicial Service was published, inviting E 
applications against 7 vacancies. The advertisement 
stipulated that the number of posts could be increased. 
Writ petitioner was a practicing Advocate and a 
candidate for direct recruitment in RHJS. She stood 8th 
F 
in the merit list of the selection. As she was not 
appointed, she filed writ petition on the ground that on 
correct calculations, the vacancies for direct recruitment 
in RHJS in accordance with the applicable rules came to 
10 and not 7 and she being the 8th selected candidate G 
was entitled to appointment against the post. Single 
Judge of High Court dismissed the petition. On appeal, 
Division Bench was of the view that creation of posts 
beyond the cadre strength mentioned in schedule-I 
795 
H 
796 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A automatically implies increase in the strength in service 
under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of RHJS Rules, 1969 and 
directed to determine the number of vacancies as on 
31.10.99 and in case the vacancies were more than 7 then 
to consider writ petitioner for the post. 
B 
By a notification dated 21.12.1996, applications were 
invited for appointment to 11 posts of RHJS by direct 
appointment. The appellant and few other Chief Judicial 
Magistrates filed writ petition on the ground that the said 
posts were not available for direct recruitment. The writ 
C petition was dismissed. The said order was challenged 
in these appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
0 
Held : 1.1. The recruitment to RHJS is governed by 
Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 as 
amended from time to time. Rule 6 provided for the 
strength of the service and also provides for varying the 
strength from time to time. Rule 9 of the Rules provided 
that the number of persons appointed to the Service by 
E direct recruitment shall at no time exceed one third of the 
total strength of service. It also provided that subject to 
the aforesaid limit every fourth person, after three 
persons appointed by promotion in the service, had to 
be a direct recruit as far as possible. [Para 5] [801-E-G] 
F 
1.2. The proportion had to be maintained keeping in 
view the total strength of the service. The strength of the 
service as per Rule 6(1) is that specified in Schedule-I 
until orders varying the same are passed under sub-rule 
G (2). Sub-rule (2) of rule 6 provided that the strength of the 
service may be varied by the Governor from time to time 
in consultation with the Court. [Paras 14 and 15] [807-8-
D] 
H 
2. The mere inclusion of the words in the 
-
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN v. 797 
VEENA VERMA & ANR. 
advertisement that "the number of posts is likely to A 
increase" would not mean that selection advertised for 
seven posts, was intended for more posts. Since only 7 
posts were advertised only 7 appointments could be 
made. Since the Full Court of the High Court 
recommended only 7 persons, the Government could not B 
appoint more than 7. [Para 21] [809-A-C] 
3. The practice followed by the authorities in 
recruitment was that vacancies in the RHJS were 
determined for filling every fourth post by direct 
recruitment and these were advertised. At the relevant C 
time, when the vacancies were advertised in the quota of 
direct recruits, there were 28 vacancies, therefore seven 
posts were advertised for direct recruitment in RHJS. 
Hence advertisement of seven vacancies was rightfully 
done. The Selection Committee was called upon to make D 
the recommendation for seven posts. The list forwarded 
by the Selection Committee was considered and all the 
seven persons who were recommended by the Selection 
Committee were recommended by the Full Court to be 
appointed. Rule 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.