Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Laxminarayan Gupta And Anr vs State (R P S C ) And Anr on 2 April, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.2608/2012 Devender Singh Chauhan versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3151/2012 Ramesh Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2361/2012 Surendra Kumar versus RPSC & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2422/2012 Nitin Kumar Sharma versus RPSC & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2791/2012 Sunil Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2722/2012 Pradeep Kumar Sukhadiya & anr vs RSPC & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2744/2012 Pushkar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2471/2012 Ghanshyam Sharma & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3119/2012 Trilok Chand Khandelwal & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.2499/2012 Umesh Kumar Bhardwaj vs RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2609/2012 Rahul Gupta versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2636/2012 Rajesh Kumar Chauhan & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2671/2012 Arvind Kumar Saini versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2702/2012 Laxminarayan Gupta & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2710/2012 Rahis Mohammed versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2743/2012 Devdatt Sharma versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2408/2012 Naresh Kumar & ors versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2768/2012 Narendra Kumar Prajapat & anr versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2861/2012 Ashok Kumar Saini versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2878/2012 Phool Chand Saini versus RPSC & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2897/2012 Niranjan Lal Yadav & ors versus RPSC & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2402/2012 Yogesh Kumar Verma versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3050/2012 Dinesh Kumar Sharma versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3116/2012 Vidhyadhar Kumar Saini versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3175/2012 Virendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3458/2012 Ramesh Chandra Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3973/2012 Ajay Kumar Garg versus State of Rajasthan & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.3453/2012 Dinesh Kumar Sharma versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3455/2012 Brijnesh Kumar Sharma versus RPSC AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3457/2012 Ratan Lal & anr versus RPSC & anr AND SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3472/2012 Naveen Tiwari versus RPSC & anr 2.4.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr JR Tantia Mr Vijay Pathak Mr Ram Pratap Saini Mr RD Meena Mr Banwari Sharma Mr SK Singodiya Mr BBL Sharma Mr Rajendra Prasad Sharma Mr Govind Gupta Mr Amardeep Atwal Mr Gajendra Singh Rathore Mr Asgar Khan Mr Takhat Singh Rathore Mr Sandeep Saxena Mr Prakash Thakuria Mr CL Saini Mr Swaraj Panwar Mr Rajesh Kapoor Mr Suresh Chand Sharma for petitioners Mr SN Kumawat, Addl Advocate General for RPSC BY THE COURT:
The respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') issued an advertisement on 17.5.2011 for selection to the posts of Lower Division Clerk (for short 'the LDC') 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 obtained 40% aggregate marks, however, failed to secure 40% marks in each paper. They were not allowed to appear in Phase-II examination thus writ petitions were preferred before this court. By interim orders, petitioners were allowed to appear in Phase-II examination which has already been held other than on one centre where it is scheduled to be held on 5/6.4.2012.
The controversy for my consideration is as to whether a candidate is required to obtain 40% marks in each paper of Phase-I of examination or 40% marks in aggregate.
Learned counsel for both the sides brought to the notice of this court a 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 is not 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 LOWER DIVISION CLERKS ..........
Explanation:
(1) to (4) .........
(5) Candidates securing minimum 40% marks in the 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 condition given in the advertisement. In the explanation at para No.5 following has been mentioned -
5.????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??? I ??? ??????? 40% ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ?? ??? II ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ??.
Perusal of the advertisement again reveals that specific 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 and 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. The petitioners have otherwise appeared in phase-II examination pursuant to interim orders of this court thus I dispose of all these writ petitions with the following directions -
1. The petitioners, who have already appeared in phase-II examination pursuant to interim orders of this court, would be eligible to get their final result. Those who will appear in phase-II examination scheduled for 5/6.4.2012 pursuant to directions of this court, would also be entitled for the same treatment provided petitioners 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, the respondents are directed to look into the aforesaid and make suitable amendment in the rules so that contradictions may not remain.
3. Examination of Phase-II is over other than at one centre where examination is scheduled for 5/6.4.2012 thus direction aforesaid would be applicable to the petitioners only and directions given above would not be treated as a precedent. Rather 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