Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chain Sukh Kothari S/O Gyan Chand ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12905/2019
Chain Sukh Kothari S/o Gyan Chand Kothari, Aged About 42
Years, Resident Of Kothari Mohalla, Post Office Pur, Tehsil- Pur,
District- Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Department Of
College Education, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
3. Ms Anju Choudhary, Lecturer In Sociology, Seth
Buddhmal Duggad Government Post Graduate College,
Sardar Sahar, District Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
25/11/2019
1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges
the selection of respondent No.3 for the post of Lecturer in
Sociology on the ground that despite having secured higher marks
in written, respondent No.3 has been selected on account of
having been granted exceptionally higher marks in the interview.
2. Learned Counsel submits that both petitioner and
respondent No.3 were claiming selection for the post of Lecturer in
Sociology under the physically disabled quota. Learned Counsel
submits that the result of the interview was not declared by the
RPSC for a period of almost 5 months, while the interviews were
(Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 04:28:16 AM)
(2 of 4) [CW-12905/2019]
conducted on 08.03.2018, the result was declared on 21.08.2018
and thus, there is a doubt created on the process of interviews
adopted by the respondents. Learned Counsel contends that there
has been a lack of transparency and exceptionally higher marks
awarded to respondent No.3 shows that there has been an
unnecessary benefit given to respondent No.3 with the sole
purpose to select her on the post of Lecturer in Sociology.
Learned Counsel has taken this Court to the result declared by the
RPSC of several other candidates who have been awarded marks
ranging from 12 to 14 in the interview while respondent No.3 was
granted 20 marks. It is with reference to the written marks
obtained by the said candidates who scored much higher marks
than respondent No.3, while respondent No.3 had only secured
87.23 marks in the written examination.
3. I have considered the submissions.
4. The selection process for the post of Lecturer
(Sociology) included written examination as well as interview.
Certain posts were available for disabled category. The petitioner
appears to have participated in the selection process as candidate
from disabled category. He has however, remained unsuccessful
in securing marks to reach the cut off for the purpose of final
selection. So far as respondent No.3 is concerned, having obtained
the mark sheet of respondent No.3, the Counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that she has been wrongfully granted exceptionally higher marks in the interview which she did not deserve. First of all, this Court is of firm opinion that granting of marks in an (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 04:28:16 AM) (3 of 4) [CW-12905/2019] interview is an exclusive domain of the Examining Body and is not within the scope of judicial review by this Court.
5. This Court would not be in a position to evaluate the assessment done by the interviewing body and would not substitute marks awarded by it unless there is a specific allegation of mala fide against any interviewing body. No such case has been set up by the petitioner and, therefore, the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 has been granted exceptionally higher marks in interview is noted to be rejected.
6. The further submission of learned Counsel that there is a lack of transparency in the examination process. Suffice it to state that candidate who appears for an examination only has a right to participate in the process of selection. The examining body has to take examination in-confidentiality and is not required to provide information to the candidates of the examiners before the selection process is completed. So far as granting marks in interview is concerned, the performance of each candidate at the time of interview matters, such marks which are granted are on the basis of the assessment made by interviewing Board. The writ petition for the purpose of challenging such marks would not lie as stated above in the proceedings and an inference of malice or bias cannot be drawn merely because the result was declared after 5 months. The pleadings in this regard are totally lacking and a selection for a candidate cannot be dislodged merely on said allegations made in the writ petition.
(Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 04:28:16 AM)
(4 of 4) [CW-12905/2019] It is also to be noted that petitioner has participated in the selection process and has not challenged the process of selection before participating in the same. He is thus, estopped to challenge the said selection process after having remained unsuccessful therein. The Supreme Court recently in the case reported in 2019 Vol. 8 SCC 68- MCD Vs. Surendra Singh has held in para 18 as under:-
"18. From a perusal of the said Clause it is noticed that though under the very Clause there is no cutoff marks specified, Clause 25 would, however, provide the full discretion to the DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks for selection. In the instant case, keeping in view that the recruitment was for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and also taking note of the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier petition requiring the maintenance of minimum standards, the DSSSB while preparing the select list had stopped the selection at a point which was indicated as the cutoff percentage. In a circumstance where Clause 25 was depicted in the Advertisement No.1/2006, when the private respondents herein and the other petitioners before the High Court were responding to the said Advertisement, if at all they had a grievance that the Clause is arbitrary and might affect their right ultimately since no minimum marks that is to be obtained has been indicated therein, they were required to assail the same at that stage. On the other hand, despite being aware of the Clause providing discretion to DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks, they have participated in the selection process by appearing for the qualifying examination without raising any protest. In that circumstance, the principle of approbate and reprobate would apply and the private respondents herein or any other candidate who participated in the process cannot be heard to complain in that regard."
7. In view thereof, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J NAVAL KISHOR /123 (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 04:28:16 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)