Appeal Dismissed: Upholding Merit-Based Appointment Rules for Senior Posts in Rajasthan Excise Service

The appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition against Rule 4 (2) (c) and Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Excise Service (General Branch) Rules, 1974, regarding appointments to encadred senior posts. The court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the distinction between cadre and non-encadred posts, stating that encadred senior posts must be filled based on merit and procedure, while non-encadred posts can be filled through deputation. The judgment affirmed Rule 4 (2) (c) and Rule 13, agreeing with the Single Judge's decision and ultimately dismissing the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Rule 4 (2) (c) and Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Excise Service (General Branch) Rules, 1974.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order dismissing the writ petition against Rule 4 (2) (c) and Rule 13 of the Rules of 1974. The key contention was the distinction between cadre posts and posts not encadred under the Rules of 1974 but considered cadre posts in other services. Rule 13 governs appointments to senior posts, specifying that appointments to encadred senior posts are based on merit and procedure under Rule 11 (a). Additionally, Rule 13 allows appointments to non-encadred senior posts from members of specific services on deputation for up to two years.

The judgment emphasized the difference between cadre posts and those not encadred under the Rules of 1974. It highlighted that a claim cannot be made against a post not encadred, as the appointment procedure is specific. The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, stating that encadred senior posts must be filled based on merit and procedure, while non-encadred posts can be filled through deputation from specific service members for a limited period.

The court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, agreeing with the Single Judge's decision. It noted the petitioner's reference to both cadre and non-encadred posts, indicating that the cadre post determination exists under the Rules. Consequently, the court upheld Rule 4 (2) (c) and Rule 13 of the Rules of 1974, concurring with the Single Judge's findings. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on these considerations.

---