@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Amitava Roy, C.J.@mdashHeard Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessential to issue formal notice. Shortly put the facts pleaded are that the petitioner, a resident of Jaipur claiming himself to be a public spirited person and a social worker devoted to the cause of public welfare in the State, seeks to present this challenge attired as a public interest litigation to annul the notification dated 16.6.2013 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued in exercise of the powers under Article 244(1) read with Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
2. Thereby whereas 45% and 5% of vacancies in the government jobs in Scheduled Areas have been reserved for Scheduled Tribes & Scheduled Castes respectively, in the matter of direct recruitment thereto, the remaining 50% of such vacancies construed to be unreserved are to be filled up by the local residents thereof (Scheduled Area). The manner of comprehension of the vacancies and the process of filling up the same have been detailed therein as well.
3. According to the petitioner, this notification is non est. in law as Her Excellency the Governor of the State lacks authority, jurisdiction and competence to exercise the power as done, and that, even otherwise the arrangement contemplated thereby is patently impermissible and inconceivable in the face of the guarantee of equality in public employment enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
4. Without prejudice to these pleas, the petitioner has further averred that this step has been taken without collecting the quantifiable dates by appointing commissions, and that, thus the reservation stipulated for the remaining 50% of the unreserved vacancies for the local inhabitants of the Scheduled Area is an abuse of executive power, and as a matter of fact, a step informed with political considerations in furtherance of election prospects.
5. Mr. Rastogi, while reiterating the above, in general with reference to the constitutional provisions involved, more particularly Article 16, Article 244 and Paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, has urged that the impugned notification not only lacks in competence and legal sanction, it runs contrary to the judicially proclaimed limits of reservation in matters of public employment and is thus liable to be set at naught. Contending that no exercise of power as made vide the impugned notification is contemplated in Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule, the learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the pleaded averments as well as on a perusal of the contents of the impugned notification, we are not inclined to entertain the challenge, in the present form.
7. The notification had been issued on 16.6.2013 and the assailment by way of public interest litigation has surfaced on 2.8.2013 i.e. after a time lag of six weeks. Admittedly, as the averments made in the petition would demonstrate, no representation of any kind has been filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority ventilating the grievances as made herein. This is clearly inexplicable, more particularly, in the perspective of his claimed bonafide endeavour to espouse a public cause. The petition also does not disclose that the same is preceded by any thorough research or study, more specifically on the aspect as to whether the provision exclusively limiting the recruitment of local inhabitants of the Scheduled Areas qua 50% of the vacancies in government jobs is warranted or not. Noticeably, the petitioner has no demur to the reservation vis-a-vis 50% of the vacancies for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The vacancies contemplated also are relatable to government jobs and distinguishable from those in State service. The petition does not disclose any fact, information or statistics to substantiate that any study or research has been made by the petitioner to overwhelmingly and unimpeachably demonstrate that no such exercise had been made by the State Government, as provided by Rule 385-H contained in Chapter-XXIIA of Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Amendment) Rules, 2010 (for short, hereafter referred to as 2010 Rules'') to derive its satisfaction or its opinion that the local residents of the Scheduled Area constitute a backward class and are not adequately represented in the services under the State or in such jobs, as comprehended under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. His plea that the impugned notification is in purported exercise of the power actuated by political considerations is thus unacceptable.
8. Suffice it to mention in the above factual premise that Article 244 read with Paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India contemplates a constitutional scheme of administration and control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes and every action taken thereunder would have to be adjudged and analyzed in the backdrop thereof. The applicability of Article 16 of the Constitution of India in its entire gamut would also have to be examined in that context.
9. Be that as it may, to reiterate, the instant application presented as a public interest litigation apparently is not only deficient in material facts and particulars, but also do not satisfy the indispensable requirements, as mandatorily prescribed by 2010 Rules. This petition is thus rejected.
