Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Himanshu Sharma vs State Of Raj And Ors on 1 March, 2016
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Jaipur Bench
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.644/2016
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1292/2016
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1848/2016
01.3.2016.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K.RANKA
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed,
Mr. Manish Parihar,
Mr. Sanjay Khan,
Mr. Anil Upman, for petitioners.
Instant writ petitions have been filed by the candidates who have participated in the selection process initiated by the respondents for the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) cum Judicial Magistrate First Class pursuant to advertisement dt.26.4.2015 under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short, Rules 2010).
It is not disputed that all the candidates reached upto the stage of interview and when the final list of selected candidates was published on 17.12.2015, such of the candidates who secured equal marks, in aggregate while adjudging their overall suitability in the light of judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in DBCWP-13930/2014 decided on 20.4.2015 Preeti Singh Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. interpreting R.24 of the Rules 2010, the marks secured in the interview were considered to be in conformity with the requirement of adjudging overall & general suitability of the candidate for service.
The grievance of the petitioners is that prior to the present selection wherever contingency arises and equal marks in aggregate are secured while preparing inter se merit, weightage was always to the one who is elder in age but this time there is a deviation in the present selection in regard to overall adjudging suitability of service in terms of Rules 2010.
Counsel submits that there are certain Rules of UP Judicial Service Rules 2001 and whenever such contingency arises that has been taken care of u/R.20(3) of Rules 2001 and if two or more candidates obtain equal marks in aggregate, the candidate elder in age is placed higher in order of merit.
Counsel submits that there are other State Judicial Service rules also there is always a preference to the candidate who is older in age if two or more candidates secured equal marks in aggregate and the present petitioners being elder in age certainly required to be considered while adjudging overall suitability u/R.24 of the Rules 2010 which reads ad infra-
The Recruiting Authority shall prepare a list of the candidates in the order of their performance on the basis of their aggregate marks. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the Recruiting Authority shall arrange them in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for service and recommend their names to the Appointing Authority for appointment to the Cadre of Civil Judge.
Counsel further submits that the present petitioners secured more marks in the written examination but since aggregate marks of the candidates being equal the candidate who secured higher marks in interview has been placed above in the order of merit and that is the reason for which the present petitioners are deprived from being considered and for their placement in order of merit in the final list published.
It is brought to our notice that the self same controversy has been examined by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in DBCWP-13930/2014 decided on 20.4.2015 Preeti Singh Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. and while interpreting R.24 of Rules 2010 and adjudging overall suitability if two or more candidates secured equal marks how their inter se merit on the basis of general suitability of service to be adjudged came for consideration and Coordinate Bench of this court was of the view that while adjudging overall suitability for service of the candidate who secured equal marks in aggregate preference has to be given to the candidates who secured higher marks in interview. Para 12, 15 & 16 of the judgment of Coordinate Bench (supra) relevant for the present purpose reads ad infra-
12. Rule 24 of the Rules mandates for the preparation of list of candidates to be recommended by the Recruiting Authority in the order of their preference on the basis of their aggregate marks and in the event of two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the Recruiting Authority is required to arrange them in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the service and recommend their names to the Appointing Authority for appointment. This rule also provides that the Recruiting Authority shall not recommend a candidate of SC/ST category unless he obtains minimum 35% marks in the aggregate of written examination and the interview and in the case of other candidates, unless he obtains minimum 40% marks in the aggregate of written examination and the interview. The rule further provides that no candidate shall be recommended who fails to obtain minimum 25% marks in the interview.
13. XX XX XX
14. XX XX XX
15. We are also in complete disagreement with respondent no.1 for recommending the name of respondent no.2 by adjudging her suitability favourably merely because she happened to be elder in age than petitioner. We say so because the rules do not envisage for adopting such a criteria of recommendation in the event of two candidates obtaining equal marks. Rule 24 of the Rules specifically deals with such a situation. This rule provides that if two or more candidates had obtained equal marks in the aggregate, the recruiting authority while preparing a list shall arrange them in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability of service and recommend their names to the appointing authority for appointment to the cadre of Civil Judge.
16. The question, therefore, is what is the real test to adjudge general suitability of candidates obtaining equal marks while arranging their names in the order of merit. As already stated above, Clause A of Schedule IV provides that examination scheme for recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge shall consist of an objective type preliminary examination, a written main examination and interview to test general knowledge of the candidate and his fitness (suitability) for appointment. The use of expression to test general knowledge of the candidate and his fitness (suitability) after the word interview demonstrates the intention that fitness (suitability) of a candidate is to be adjudged on the basis of marks obtained in interview.
Indisputably, in the instant case, selections have been made of such of the candidates on the basis of marks obtained in the interview in terms of R.24 of Rules 2010.
The submission by counsel for the petitioners that according to the past practice of this Court preference was to be given to the candidates who is elder in age while adjudging overall suitability does not hold good in the light of the judgment dt.20.4.2015 (supra) where the Coordinate Bench while adjudging overall and general suitability held that if two or more candidates secure equal marks in aggregate the candidate who gets higher marks in interview shall be placed above in the order of merit and the judgment of Coordinate Bench was challenged in SLP before the Apex Court and that came to be dismissed vide order dt.12.1.2016.
Consequently, the writ petitions being devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.
(J.K.RANKA), J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. Dsr/-
"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed"
Datar Singh Deputy Registrar