Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajbala Choudhary vs State (Home Department)Ors on 6 December, 2017
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
(1 of 6)
[CW-4555/2013]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4555 / 2013
Rajbala Choudhary D/o Shiv Chand Singh, aged 30 years, R/o Plot
No.185, Patel Nagar Near Dadudyal Nagar, Mansarover, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary Home,
Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through its
Chairman.
3. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. B.S.Gurjar, Member, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
R/o A-4, Meershah Ali Colony, Ajmer.
5. Anu Gurjar having Roll No.192786 through Secretary,
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
6. Bhagirath Renwal having Roll No.104416 through Secretary,
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
7. Dauoo having Roll No.142265 through Secretary, Rajasthan
Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Rajbala Choudhary, petitioner self. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Dilip Singh Shekhawat, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI Judgment Judgment reserved on : 30th November, 2017 Date of Judgment : 6th December, 2017 By the Court (Per Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ajay Rastogi):
The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by her non-selection on the post of Sub-Inspector, included in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which came to be advertised by the respondent-RPSC vide its advertisement (2 of 6) [CW-4555/2013] dt.25.11.2010.
The petitioner being eligible submitted her application and participated in the selection process which was initiated by the Commission and qualified the written examination and physical efficiency test and was finally called for interview on 03.10.2012 vide letter dt.26.06.2012 (Annex.2).
Result of the selection process was declared by the Commission on 25.02.2013 and as far as the present petitioner is concerned, since she failed to qualify the minimum benchmark of 30% marks in the interview, she was declared disqualified in the selection process.
Indisputably, as per the material which has come on record, the petitioner secured 13 marks in the interview against 15 is the minimum qualifying marks which a candidate has to secure out of 50 in the interview, in terms of R.23 of the Rules, 1989 and that came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition initially before the ld.Single Judge of this court with the grievance that the interview board has not assigned reasons for the marks awarded in the interview and she performed well in the written examination and in physical efficiency test and in absence of reasons being forthcoming in not awarding the minimum passing marks by the interview board, its action is per se arbitrary and abuse of discretion and declaring the petitioner disqualified in the selection process, as she failed to qualify the minimum qualifying benchmark, is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.
The ld.Single Judge of this court vide its order dt.10.04.2017 (3 of 6) [CW-4555/2013] took note of the submissions made by the petitioner and since the petitioner is appearing in person and vires of R.23 of the Rules, 1989 not being challenged, considered it appropriate that the vires of R.23 of the Rules, 1989 has to be examined and referred the matter to be listed before the Division Bench.
Pursuant thereto, the matter has been placed before the Division Bench and since there was no pleading regarding assailing the vires of R.23 of the Rules, 1989 and the respondents cannot be taken to surprise, we took note of the submissions made and after a reference being made of R.23 of the Rules, 1989 vide our order dt.17.07.2017 called upon the respondents to file their additional reply, if so required justifying their action including the nexus, if any, in laying down minimum benchmark to qualify in the interview, as envisaged u/R.23 of the Rules, 1989.
Reply has been filed by the respondents and apart from justification, has tendered the procedure being followed by the interview board while adjudging the overall suitability of the candidates.
The extract of R.23 of the Rules, 1989 being relevant for the present purpose, reads ad infra:-
"23- e.M+y@vk;ksx dh vu'ka"kk;sas % e.M+y@vk;ksx] ftu vk'kkfFkZ;ksa dks lEcfU/kr in ij fu;qfDr ds ;ksX; le>rk gS] dh ,d lwph rS;kj djsxk] tks ;ksX;rk Øe ls O;fLFkr dh tk;sxh vkSj mls egkfuns"kd ,oa egkfujh{kd iqfyl dks vxzsf"kr djsxk] tks mlds Lrj ij lEcfU/kr fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks] lwph esa mYysf[kr vk'kkfFkZ;ksa ds uke mudh ;ksX;rk Øe esa] miyC/k fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k rd] lwfpr djsxkA e.My@vk;ksx] mu vk'kkfFkZ;ksa ds uke ftUgksusa lk{kkRdkj esa 36 izfr'kr ls de vad ,oa lexz :i ls 45 izfr'kr ls de vad izkIr fd;s gS] vuq'kaf"kr ugha djsxkA ijUrq izfrcU/k ;g gS fd HkrhZ e.My@vk;ksx ¼efgyk vH;kfFk;ksa½ (4 of 6) [CW-4555/2013] ¼fiNMs oxksZ] fof'k"V oxksZ ,oa vkfFkZd :i ls fiNMs+ oxksZ½] vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa vkSj vuqlwfpr tu&tkfr;ksa ds mu vk'kkfFkZ;ksa dh vuq'ka"kk dj ldrk gS] tks ;|fi U;wure vad izkIr djus esa lQy jgs gSa] fdUrq iz'kklu dh n{krk dks cuk;s j[kus ij iw.kZ /;ku nsrs gq,] e.My us lsok esa fu;qfDr nsus gsrq lq;ksX; ?kksf"kr fd;s gSa] ;fn ,sls vk'kkFkhZ lk{kkRdkj esa 30 izfr'kr vad rFkk lexz :i ls 40 izfr'kr vad izkIr dj ysrs gSA** At the outset it may be noticed that so far as the vires of R.23 of the Rules, 1989, is concerned, the same has been examined in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4264/2010 [Kalu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] decided on 11.10.2011 and the constitutional validity of R.23 of the Rules, 1989 has been upheld by this court. The operative portion of the judgment dt.11.10.2011 reads ad infra:-
"Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 cannot be said to be ultra vires or unconstitutional. The petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Stay petition is also dismissed."
In the light of the judgment of this court dt.11.10.2011, at least the question as regards constitutional validity of R.23 of the Rules, 1989 is no more res integra to be further examined by us.
The further complaint of the petitioner, as being noticed, is to disclose justification for not granting her minimum qualifying marks in the interview and in absence of such reasons being assigned by the interview board, their action is arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power is without substance for the reason that the scheme of Rules lays down the procedure to be followed for conducting the competitive examination and sub-rule (7) lays down the constitution of Committee/Board and what is required to be looked into by the Committee/Board while examining aptitude (5 of 6) [CW-4555/2013] of the candidate in the interview, & adjudging the overall suitability to the post which includes personality, address, tact, behaviour, specialised training, aptitude for the post, judgment, leadership and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. R.21(7) of the Rules, 1989 reads ad infra:-
"R.21(7) (a) The aptitude test and interview of the candidates qualifying physical efficiency test, shall carry 50 marks. For the posts of Sub-Inspectors in Section-I, II and Platoon Commanders in Section-IV shall be held by a Recruitment Board, which shall consist of the following:-
(1) Chairman or Member of the Commission to be nominated by the Chairman. Chairman (2) An Officer of the Police Department nominated by the Commission in consultation with the D.G. cum-IGP not below the rank of IGP. Member (3) An Officer of the Police Department nominated by the Commission in consultation with the D.G. cum-IGP not below the rank of Dy IGP. Member (4) One Psychologist nominated by the Commission.
Member The Recruitment Board shall award marks to each candidate in respect of suitability to the post, taking into consideration personality, address, tact, behaviour, specialised training, aptitude for the post, judgment, leadership and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test by each such candidate. Candidates holding Degree or Diploma in Criminology or N.C.C. 'C' Certificate or who have offered Police Administration as one of the Papers for the degree examination may be given weight.
(b) The Recruitment Board, in the case of Inspectors/ Sub-Inspectors/Assistant Sub-Inspectors, in Section- III, shall thereafter interview and award marks to each candidate, out of a maximum of 50 marks in respect of suitability to the post, taking into consideration personality, address, tact, behaviour, specialised training, aptitude for the post, judgment, leadership and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. The marks so awarded shall be added to the Recruitment Board to the marks obtained in the written test by each such candidate."
(6 of 6) [CW-4555/2013] These are primary considerations which has to be kept in mind by the Committee/Board while adjudging overall suitability of the candidate when appeared in the interview.
Although the petitioner has tried to project the questions which were put to her by the interview board which according to her smacks of arbitrariness but no inference can be drawn on mere assertions & what being orally contended before the court, no supportive tangible material has been placed on record, in absence whereof, for what being prayed for by the petitioner is of no substance. At the same time, the petitioner has not alleged any malice or biasness against members of the interview board and raising objections at a later stage after failing in qualifying the minimum benchmark which was the requirement under the Rules, 1989 & indicated in the advertisement does not hold justification.
After we have heard the parties and taking note of the submissions made, we are satisfied that no error has been committed by the respondents in its decision making process, which call for our interference and as regards vires of R.23 of the Rules, 1989, it has been upheld by this court vide its judgment dt.11.10.2011.
Consequently, the instant writ petition is without substance, accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J. (AJAY RASTOGI)J. Solanki DS, PS