Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Subash Chandra Son Of Hari Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Augustine George Masih, Sameer Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:18904-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 580/2023
1. Subash Chandra Son Of Hari Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Village Partappura Post Khuri Bari Tehsil
Laxmangarh District Sikar Rajasthan Pin Code - 332315
2. Tripati Bhai Bhedi D/o Ramavatar, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of 222 Mansarovar Colony, Kala Kuan Alwar,
Rajasthan 303012.
3. Pratap Singh Son Of Jai Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Ghalib Syed Outside Delhi Gate Alwar District
Alwr Rajasthan 301001 Disable Candidate
4. Ashok Kumar Son Of Kailash Chand Nagar, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of 17 Dusara Walla Kuan Meena Pari
Outside Delhi Gate Alwar District Alwar Rajasthan
301001.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director Department Of
Secondary Education Bikaner Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its
Chairman Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prabhansh Sharma with Mr. Nagendra Singh & Ms. Sharda Patidar For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 22/08/2023
1. By way of the present appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11276/2022 whereby the petition preferred by the appellants-herein was dismissed.(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:25:30 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18904-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-580/2023]
2. The preliminary ground of challenge raised by the learned counsel for the appellants pertains to the settled legal dictum which precludes the State from changing the rules of the game, after the game has already been played. In order to elucidate upon the said contention, learned counsel submitted that the respondent-State issued an Advertisement (No.02/2022) dated 01.02.2022 for the post of Senior and Basic Computer Instructor. However, pursuant to the exam having already been conducted, and sans including any stipulation qua the minimum qualification and/or percentage qua the said exam in the advertisement, the respondent-State inserted a novel condition specifically laying down the minimum qualification of securing 40% marks for recruitment on the said post. Therefore, being aggrieved of the said inclusion of the minimum qualification at a belated stage, learned counsel argued that the level playing field in the examination cannot be changed after the exam has already been conducted. Furthermore, it was contended that as per the settled position of the law, any change in the norms regulating the procedure of selection at a belated stage is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the law. A strict selection criteria has to be adopted, which must be declared to the candidates at the time of commencement of the recruitment process, of which the rules cannot be changed at a subsequent stage. Therefore, in light of the submissions made above, learned counsel prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order impugned dated 18.04.2023.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record of the instant appeal.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:25:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18904-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-580/2023]
4. Preceding to the discussion on merits, this Court deems it fit to lay down the basic factual matrix of the case at hand. It is noted that the appellants participated in the recruitment process for the post of Senior and Basic Computer Instructor pursuant to the issuance of the Advertisement (No. 02/2022) dated 01.02.2022 issued by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board. In furtherance of the said advertisement, a written examination was conducted by the respondent-Board, comprising of two multiple choice/objective type question papers. The said examination was conducted on 18.06.2022. The preliminary answer key for the said papers was published on 04.07.2022, whereas the final answer key was issued by the respondent-Board on 31.08.2022.
5. Furthermore, it is also duly noted that in the Advertisement (No.02/2022) dated 01.02.2022, no condition and/or stipulation qua the minimum qualification for recruitment was prescribed. In essence, the advertisement did not in any express words lay down the condition of the candidates securing 40% marks as a minimum qualification for their name to be recommended for appointment on the post so advertised. However, vide corrigendum circular and/or advertisement dated 30.06.2022, the minimum qualification for recruitment was ascertained at 40% marks in the examination already conducted on 18.06.2022.
6. Be that as it may, the Rajasthan Education (State and Subordinate) Service Rules 2021, which are framed under and/or derive their authority from Article 309 of the Constitution of India are prevalent across all recruitment examinations in the State regardless of their express incorporation into the advertisements (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:25:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18904-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-580/2023] so issued by the respondent-Board. The said rules also provide for the minimum qualification as inserted by the corrigendum circular dated 30.06.2022. In this regard, it would be prudent to reiterate Rule 28 of the said Rules of 2021:
"28. Recommendations of the Commission/Board/Committee/Appointing Authority- The Commission/Board or the Committee or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall prepare a list of the candidates, whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned, arranged in the order of merit on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination/interview and forwarded the same to the Appointing Authority. The commission/Board or the Committee or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 40% marks in each of the papers of the competitive examination:
Provided that:-
(i) the percentage fixed as above shall be relaxed by 5% for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
(ii) the Commission/Board/Committee may also, to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list category wise. The Commission/Board may on requisition, recommend names of such candidates, in order of merit to the Appointing Authority, within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by them/it to the Appointing Authority."
7. Furthermore, while dealing with an identical issue, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2030/2023 titled as Tila Ram Haradu vs. Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board & Anr., has held:
"12. Whereas in the instant case, Rule 28 of the Rules of 2021 itself provided that a candidate (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:25:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18904-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-580/2023] has to secure minimum 40% marks in each of the papers of the competitive examination and what has been done by the Selection Board in the instant case is, that mandate of rule 28, which was already existing and prevailing, has been brought to the notice of the candidates. Such an attempt by no stretch of imagination can be construed to be a situation where the rules of game have been changed.
14. Petitioners' argument if analysed logically turns out to be, that had this condition been given in the advertisement, they would have strived to secure more marks so as to make it 40%. A candidate is supposed to and expected to give his best regardless of any bar or minimum percentage fixed. This Court hardly finds any merit in petitioners' case."
8. Therefore, it can be conclusively said that the apprehension of the appellants qua the rules of the game being changed, after the game has already been played, is misplaced, for the following reasons, namely:
8.1. That Rule 28 of the Rules of 2021 was already in place for governing the subject examinations and the recruitments effectuated in connection therewith. In essence, the advertisements so issued were in consonance with the mandate of Rule 28 of the Rules of 2021. Irrespective of specific inclusion in the advertisement dated 01.02.2022 qua the minimum qualification, the aspiring candidates were always required to score minimum 40% marks in order to qualify for recruitment on the advertised post.
8.2. By way of the corrigendum dated 30.06.2022, the respondent-Board did not change the rules of the game by introducing a novel requirement, which did not exist at the time of issuance of the advertisement. Rather, the corrigendum merely re-(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:25:30 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18904-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-580/2023] iterated and/or brought to the notice of the candidates, the rule which was already prevalent.
8.3. Therefore, by way of the corrigendum dated 30.06.2022, the rules of the game qua the minimum qualification were not changed and or introduced at a later stage. Rather, the same were merely brought to the express attention of the candidates. 8.4. Irrespective of the preceding discussion, the fundamental ground of challenge, as put forth by the appellants, lacks substance, especially on account of the fact that candidates irrespective of the minimum qualification, are required to bend over backwards and try their best to score positively in the examination. The apprehension that the candidates would have to score a minimum percentage of marks for consideration on appointment is devoid of logic.
9. In light of the observations made herein-above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ ANIL SHARMA /5 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:25:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)