Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raj. Public Service Commi. Ajmer vs Shobha Mutha & Ors on 5 January, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
(1 of 9)
[SAW-674/2016]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 674 / 2016
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through its
Secretary, Ajmer
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shobha Mutha D/o Shri Hari Prakash Mutha, aged about 41
years, resident of Shri Krishan Niwas, Plot No.482, Chopasni
Road, Choudhary Motor Street, Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Department of High Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
----- Respondents
With
D.B.SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 705 / 2016
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through its Secretary
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rameshwar Lal Khatik S/o Shri Gopi Lal Khatik, aged about
25 years, Resident of Mukam / post Aamdala, Tehsil Mandal
District Bhilwara.
2. The Reena Sharma D/o Late Shri Om Prakash Sharma,
Resident of 686/27, RPF Road, Ramganj, Ajmer.
3. Vinod Kumar Dholi S/o Shri Ram Prasad Dholi, Resident of
Village Kachariya, Post Nandsi, Tehsil Bhinay District Ajmer.
4. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur.
5. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B.SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 777 / 2016
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its Secretary,
Ajmer
----Appellant
Versus
(2 of 9)
[SAW-674/2016]
1. Karmee Ram S/o Shri Bharma Ram, by caste Kalbi, aged
about 25 years, R/o Village and Post Sorda, Tehsil Revdar,
District Sirohi.
2. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Directorate of Secondary
Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B.SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 825 / 2016
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through its
Secretary, Ajmer
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bajrang Lal S/o Roopa Ram, Aged about 34 years, resident
of village Nagwara, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur (Raj.)
2. The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of
Secondary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Education,
Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. GR Punia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. OP Punia,
Mr. Khet Singh, Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. DS Beniwal, Mr. RS Saluja, Mr. Yashpal
Khileree
Mr.S.S.Ladrecha : Additional Advocate General
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Order PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 05/01/2017 These four appeals arise from separate orders passed in different writ petitions.
(3 of 9) [SAW-674/2016] There being a similarity on facts and the questions of law involved being common they have been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. The controversy relates to appointment on the post of Senior Teacher Gr.II under advertisement dated 2.8.2013. In the facts of the case, delay in preferring some of the appeals is condoned after hearing Counsel for the parties.
The writ petitions have been allowed following an order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.34 of 2015 (Smt.Manju Chhaba & Ors. V/s State of Rajasthan) affirmed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.127 of 2016 and SLP (Civil) No.20168 of 2016 against the same also dismissed on 18.7.2016 in limine, as also the review application.
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the advertisement made a departure from the normal rule that eligibility was to be acquired by the last date for submission of applications. It permitted those who had participated or were going to participate in the B.Ed. examination or post-graduate examination in concerned subject also to apply but subject to the condition that they should have acquired the said qualification before the examination for selection under the advertisement. The process of selection was based only on a written examination and not interview.
Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ' the subordinate service rules') provided that a candidate may be provisionally permitted to appear for the examination or interview as the case may be.
(4 of 9) [SAW-674/2016] Mere permission to appear in the examination shall not entitle the candidate to a presumption of eligibility. The Commission may scrutinize the applications of the candidate later on and consider only those who are found suitable for appointment. Considering that those who were yet to appear or whose results were awaited were provisionally permitted to appear, obviously the question of any scrutiny with regard to their possessing the B.Ed. or post Graduate qualification on the last date for applying did not arise. That was an aspect to be considered only subsequently subject to qualifying in the written examination.
Clause (iii) of proviso to Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the educational service rules') relevant for the present controversy provided that the aforesaid eligibility must be acquired before appearing in written examination. Manifestly it means that the results of B.Ed or post graduation as the case may be should have been published before the first date of the examination. The fact that the examination may have been in two parts and on two dates is not relevant. A candidate cannot claim that eligibility was acquired before the second paper. Without prejudice to the same it was alternatively contended in the facts of the present case that the first paper was held on 12.7.2014 and the second paper was scheduled on 14.7.2014. The latter for unavoidable reasons was postponed to 27.9.2014. The fact that the Respondents may have acquired the qualifications on 22.9.2014 cannot come to their aid and is not relevant as the eligibility at best will have to be tested as on the original scheduled date of 14.7.2014.
(5 of 9) [SAW-674/2016] Smt. Manju Chhaba (supra) does not lay down any law and the larger question with regard to the interpretation of the educational service rules was left open for consideration. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed in limine. Relief was granted only on the premise that they had been permitted to appear and had successfully qualified in the written examination. There is no ambiguity in the educational service rules and effect has to be given to the literal meaning of the words used.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents fairly conceded that Smt. Manju Chhaba (supra) came to be decided on the premise of their having been permitted to appear in the written examination leaving the larger question of law open. Rule 11 of the educational service rules had a salutary purpose and it has to be interpreted in a manner so as to advance that purpose and not to stultify it. The departure from the normal rule that eligibility must be acquired as on the last date for submission of applications was deliberate to cast the net as wide as possible so as to secure the best available talent. A bare reading of the rule reveals that the latitude being given for acquiring eligibility was stretched to the maximum limit possible upto the stage of interview also depending on the nature of the selection process.
Relying upon Justice C.K. Thakker Law Lexicon 4 th Edition 2016 it was submitted that the word 'examination' has to be understood in a composite manner to include the entire examination process. The interpretation by the Appellants that it had to be limited to commencement of the examination on the date of the first paper was reading into the rules something which (6 of 9) [SAW-674/2016] the Legislature had not provided for rendering the use of the word "selection" therein futile. The second paper on 14.7.2014 was extended by a corrigendum to 27.9.2014 and fresh admit cards were issued. It is an admitted position that the results of the Respondents were published before 22.9.2014.
We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. Rule 19 of the subordinate service rules permits grant of provisional permission to appear at the selection examination and or interview as the case may be. The grant of provisional permission does not tantamount to acknowledgment or presumption of any eligibility. The Commission can scrutinize the applications later on. In consonance with the same, the Commission published the advertisement in question making a departure from the normal rule that eligibility must be acquired by the last date for submission of applications. Those who had appeared at the B.Ed. examination or post-graduate examination in the concerned subject or were preparing to appear were also eligible to apply. The rider was that their results should have been declared before they appeared in the written examination as the selection process was confined to a written examination only.
It is considered necessary to set out Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 in its entirety:
"11. Academic and Technical qualification and Experience- A candidate for direct recruitment to the posts enumerated in the (Schedules) shall possess-
(i) the qualification and experience given in column 4 of the [Schedules] and [(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script and knowledge of Rajasthani culture.] (7 of 9) [SAW-674/2016] Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the course which is the requisite educational qualification for the post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for direct recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but she/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification to the appropriate selection agency :-
(i)before appearing in the main examination, where selection is made through two stages of written examination and interview;
(ii)before appearing in interview where selection is made through written examination and interview;
(iii)before appearing in the written examination or interview where selection is made through only written examination or only interview, as the case may be."
A conjoint reading of clause (iii) of proviso to Rule 11 subordinate service rules and rule 19 of the educational service rules leads to the conclusion that a candidate could be granted provisional permission to appear in the examination. If the candidate qualified in the written examination, his application could be scrutinized to examine fulfillment of condition of eligibility and which would include publication of the B.Ed. or post- graduation results as the case may be before the due date. If the candidate did not qualify in the written examination he/she went out of the zone for consideration and the question of any scrutiny for eligibility would not arise.
The limited question for our consideration is the scope of clause (iii) to proviso of Rule 11 and whether the term "written examination" used therein will have to be confined to the date 12.7.2014 when the first paper was held and the barrier of eligibility closed on that date or will it extend to 14.7.2014 the date of second paper which was extended by corrigendum to 27.9.2014.
(8 of 9) [SAW-674/2016] The Law Lexicon describes the word "examination" as "a combined competitive examination consisting of a preliminary examination and a main examination for recruitment to the service held under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 the recruitment rules and includes a combined competitive examination for recruitment to the service and such other service or services as may be specified by the Central Government from time to time."
The relaxation of date for acquisition of eligibility had a salutary purpose to widen the net by bringing more and more persons within the zone of consideration and obtain the best talent possible. We are in concurrence with this submission on behalf of the Respondents. Otherwise, there was no need for the Appellant to widen the zone of consideration by restricting it only to those who had acquired the eligibility qualifications before the last date for submission of applications. The Rule visualizes different situations where the selection process consists of a preliminary examination, main examination followed by interview, where the selection was based on a written examination and interview and where the selection was based only on written examination or only on interview. The relaxation is provided for to the maximum extent possible depending on the nature of the selection process.
It has rightly been contended that clause (iii) of proviso to Rule 11 uses the words "appearing in the written examination where selection is through written examination." No word of a statute can be read in a manner to render any part of it as futile. Selection can be made only after the written examination is over. It naturally means only after both the papers are completed. To (9 of 9) [SAW-674/2016] accept the submission that the barrier for eligibility will drop on 12.7.2014 the day of the first paper would render the word "selection" meaningless. If the date for second paper got extended to 27.9.2014, that date has to be considered as relevant for all purposes including eligibility under the advertisement and it cannot be accepted as a relevant date for some purposes and not for other purposes.
In conclusion, we hold that the eligibility as required under clause (iii) of proviso to Rule 11 of the education service rules has to be understood as before the completion of the written examination in a composite sense meaning the date the last examination was held.
We therefore find no reason to interfere with the orders under appeal.
The appeals are dismissed.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J. (NAVIN SINHA)C.J. ms/-