RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSN. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSN. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Under the existing rule, the strength of service of RHJS was 150 and, since 41 direct recruits were already working, there was no substantive vacancy. The impugned notification advertising 19 posts for direct recruitment was therefore illegal because the strength of the service could not be varied without an order amending Schedule-I in accordance with Rule 6(2).

Parties
Petitioner: Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers Association; Respondent: State of Rajasthan and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Main writ petition allowed; impugned notification quashed. Connected writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
Legal Topics
Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, Direct Recruitment, Cadre Strength, Rule 6(2), Schedule I, Judicial Service Promotions
Service Law Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules Direct Recruitment Cadre Strength Rule 6(2) Schedule I Judicial Service Promotions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers Association

Petitioner

State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State Government could vary the strength of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) without amending Schedule-I in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules
  2. 2 Legality of the notification advertising 19 posts for direct recruitment to RHJS

Ratio Decidendi

Under the existing rule, the strength of service of RHJS was 150 and, since 41 direct recruits were already working, there was no substantive vacancy. The impugned notification advertising 19 posts for direct recruitment was therefore illegal because the strength of the service could not be varied without an order amending Schedule-I in accordance with Rule 6(2).

Court Disposition

Main writ petition allowed; impugned notification quashed. Connected writ petition dismissed as infructuous.

Orders

  • Impugned notification No. Estt.(RJS)/118/2003 dated 20.10.2003 is quashed.
  • Writ Petition (Civil) 275/2007 dismissed as having become infructuous.