1. There is delay of 17 days in filing the intra court appeals. For the reasons mentioned in the applications u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, the same are allowed. Delay in filing the appeals is condoned.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. The intra court appeals have been preferred as against order dated 1.11.2011 passed by Single Bench in bunch of writ applications wherein legality of the advertisement dated 25.7.2008 was questioned.
4. The petitioners have questioned validity of the recruitment which was made for the post of Rural Ayurved Nurse/Compounder pursuant to advertisement dated 25.7.2008. Selections were made under the rules called "the Rajasthan Rural Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 2008". The recruitment was questioned firstly, on the ground that the selections were made on the basis of interview. Secondly, the interview was the method devised to regularize the services of those already working on contract basis and thirdly, there was violation of Rules 25 and 26 of the Rules of 2008.
5. The Single Bench has observed that many contract employees have not been selected, thus, it cannot be said that it was a method devised to regularize the services of some of the contract employees; they might have performed well in the interview as they had work experience. Thus, there was no violation of Rules 25 and 26 of the Rules of 2008. Holding of interview by the Interview Committee was not one man show. Vires of the Rules providing for interview to be the basis of selection has not been questioned. The Single Bench has dismissed the writ applications by the impugned order. Hence, the intra court appeals have been preferred.
6. Mr.Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that as many as 59 Scheduled Caste category candidates were selected out of 97 posts, which were for General Category. Scheduled Castes candidates, who had been selected were less meritorious on academic side. Thus, the appellants ought to have been selected being higher meritorious on academic side. He has further submitted that the vires of the Rules which provide for interview to be the basis of selection has not been questioned, however, he has submitted that the interview could not have been the sole basis of selection.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that merely by the fact that 59 Scheduled Castes candidates had been selected, the appellants cannot claim relief as they have not alleged any mala fide against the members of the Interview Board. Scheduled Castes candidates, if performed well, can always be selected against General Category. As regards other submission that the interview could not have been made
the sole basis of selection, admittedly, the Rule providing for interview, vires of which has not been questioned; in absence whereof, the appellants cannot question the selections which have been made. Procedure which has been adopted is provided under the Rules. None of the selected candidates were impleaded as party to the writ applications; in their absence, no relief can be given to the appellants.
8. Thus, we find that no ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed.
