Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Amarchand Prajapati vs State (R P S C ) And Anr on 29 May, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.8265/2012 Amarchand Prajapati versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.7981/2012 Narendra Singh & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8262/2012 Devendra Pradhan versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.7886/2012 Suresh Kumar Tank versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8233/2012 Madhu Sudan Sharma versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8175/2012 Alok Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8087/2012 Mohammed Shahid versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.7137/2012 Dilip Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8275/2012 Ravi Agrawal versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.7857/2012 Sushil Kumar versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.7116/2012 Chandan Singh Yadav versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.7117/2012 Ravi Prakash versus RPSC & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.7123/2012 Lokesh Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8047/2012 Prakash Sharma & ors versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8415/2012 Udit Jain versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8281/2012 Anil Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.6993/2012 Rakesh Kumar Sharma versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8765/2012 Rajesh Kumar Sharma versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.6908/2012 Purshottam Dharamdasani versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8701/2012 Bhuvnesh Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8702/2012 Deepak Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.7447/2012 Karni Singh versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.7741/2012 Gajendra Yadav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.7745/2012 Sunil Kumar & ors versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8070/2012 Vikas Mathur & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.8080/2012 Sanjay Kala versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.7434/2012 Ravi Prakash & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr 29.5.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Mahendra Sharma Mr Vijay Pathak Mr Raj Kumar Sharma Mr RD Meena Mr Banwari Sharma Mr Dinesh Sharma Mr Sandeep Garssa Mr Sunil Kumar Jain Mr JR Choudhary Mr Laxmikant Sharma Mr JR Tantia Mr VS Fauzdar Mr Samay Singh Mrs Sangeeta Shrama Mr Pradeep Singh Mr Kailash Choudhary Mr Mohd.Iqbal Khan Mr OP Mishra for petitioners Mr SN Kumawat, Addl Advocate General for RPSC BY THE COURT:
Since on same set of facts similar relief has been claimed, all these writ petitions have been heard together and decided by this common order.
The respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') issued an advertisement on 6.9.2011 for selection to the post of Stenographer under the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules of 1970') and Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Clerical Grade and Subordinate Service) Rules and Regulations, 1999 (for short 'the Rules & Regulations of 1999'). It was through combined competitive examination, 2011.
All the petitioners appeared in the selection which is divided in two phases i.e. Phase-I and Phase-II. Result of Phase-I was declared, wherein, petitioners failed to secure 40% marks in each paper though obtained 40$ aggregate marks. They are not allowed to appear in Phase-II examination thus writ petitions have been preferred before this court.
The controversy for my consideration is as to whether a candidate is required to obtain 40% marks in each paper of Phase-I examination or 40% marks in aggregate?
Learned counsel for both the sides referred Notification dated 5.7.2010 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (A-Gr-II), amending the Rules of 1970 and Rules & Regulations of 1999. For convenience and ready reference, amendment in rule 27 of the Rules & Regulations of 1999 is quoted hereunder -
2. Amendment of Rule 27.- The existing proviso to rule 27 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Ministerial and Subordinate Service) Rules and Regulations, 1999, hereinafter referred to as the said rules and regulations, shall be substituted by the following, namely:-
Provided further that the Commission shall not recommend any candidate for the post of Lower Division Clerks and Stenographers who has failed to obtain a minimum of 40% marks in each of the papers of the Phase-I and a minimum of 36% marks in each of the paper of the Phase-II of the competitive examination.
Referring to the above rule, learned Additional Advocate General Mr SN Kumawat submitted that one cannot be allowed to appear in Phase-II examination unless secure minimum 40% marks in each paper of Phase-I examination. He accordingly supports action of the Commission in denying appearance in Phase-II examination.
Learned counsel for petitioners, on the other hand, submits that by the aforesaid Notification dated 5.7.2010, even Schedule-II appended to the Rules and Regulations of 1999, existing part-II has been substituted. Therein, a condition to obtain 40% marks in each paper does not exist. For ready reference, schedule amended by the same Notification containing condition relevant to this case is also quoted hereunder-
PART-II SCHEME AND SYLLABUS OF THE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION FOR THE POST OF STENOGRAPHER ..........
Explanation:
(1) to (2) .........
(3) Candidates securing minimum 40% marks in Phase-I, shall only be admitted to the Phase-II subject to three times the number of advertised vacancies but in the said range all those candidates who secure the same percentage of marks shall be included.
Perusal of the aforesaid shows requirement of 40% marks in Phase-I thus schedule to the rules so amended does not impose a condition to obtain 40% marks in each paper. The position of fact is further looked into from the terms and condition given in the advertisement. In the explanation at para No.3, following has been mentioned -
3.????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??? I ??? ??????? 40% ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ?? ??? II ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ??.
Perusal of the advertisement again reveals that condition to obtain 40% marks in each paper does not exist. In the aforesaid background, not only there exist conflict in the Rules & Regulations of 1999 itself but advertisement does not impose a condition to obtain 40% marks in each paper of Phase-I examination.
Petitioners appeared in the selection in Phase-I taking note of the condition mentioned in the advertisement where compulsion to obtain 40% marks in each paper of Phase-I does not exist. The Rules and Regulations are having conflict inasmuch as rule 27, now amended, impose a condition to obtain 40% marks in each paper of Phase-I examination, whereas, schedule so amended does not caste aforesaid condition.
In the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that looking to the conflict in the Rules and keeping in mind the terms of advertisement, it should go to the benefit of the candidates. It is also for the reason that candidates have appeared in the selection taking note of the terms of advertisement whereby they were not asked to obtain 40% of marks in each paper of phase-I examination. Accordingly, I dispose of all these writ petitions with the following directions -
1. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioners in Phase-II examination who have obtained 40% aggregate marks in Phase-I examination.
2. The direction aforesaid has been given keeping in mind the conflict in the Rules and Regulations inasmuch as rule 27 of the Rules and Regulations of 1999 provides 40% marks in each paper whereas schedule appended thereto provides 40% marks in phase-I examination thus the respondents are directed to look into the aforesaid and make suitable amendment in the rules so that contradictions may not remain. The directions aforesaid have been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The respondent-State has been directed to take note of the discrepancy in the Rules thus it is expected that before the next selection, necessary amendment would be made either amending rule 27 of the Rules & Regulations of 1999 or the schedule appended thereto in whatever manner the government thinks fit and proper and similar action for the rules of 1970.
This disposes of the stay applications also.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW