Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Usha Sharma (Smt.) vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 17 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: RLW2008(1)RAJ418
Author: R.M. Lodha
Bench: R.M. Lodha, Mohammad Rafiq
JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J.
1. The unsuccessful petitioner is in appeal. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellant, 'the petitioner' here-in-after. The petitioner claims to have secured second class marks at the level of post graduation. She is also B.Ed. She is working on the post of Teacher Grade HI and is said to have completed 15 years service as Teacher Grade III.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') issued an advertisement (3/2004-05) dated 18.8.2004 calling for applications for the post of Teachers Grade I in different subjects. Particularly, for the post of Teacher Grade 1 (Hindi), total 309 posts were advertised out of which 112 posts were kept for general caste male candidates and 47 posts were reserved for female general caste candidates.
3. For a total 309 posts of Teacher Grade I (Hindi), more than 15000 applications we received. The written examination, accordingly, was conducted by the Commission in which about 15000 students are said to have appeared. The petitioner was declared qualified in the written examination. She was called for the interview. The results were declared. The petitioner's name appeared at position No. 9 in the reserved list for female-candidates. Upset thereby, she approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The petitioner prayed that the Commission and the State Government be directed to prepare a fresh merit list after taking into consideration the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and based on that merit list, the appointment orders be issued.
4. The Commission contested the writ petition and filed its reply. They justified the holding of written examination which was according to them 'screening test' to sort out the candidates for the purpose of interview. They justified the process of selection and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The Single Judge by his order dated 16.3.2007 dismissed the writ petition.
6. Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the counsel for the petitioner, principally, focused on two issues before us. First, his submission was that written examination having been held by the Commission, the marks obtained therein could not have been ignored and the selection could not have been made on the basis of the interview marks alone, According to him, it was incumbent upon the Commission to give weightage to the marks obtained in the written examination. His second submission before us was that even if it be assumed that the merit of the candidates could have been evaluated on the basis of the marks obtained in interview, the process of interview suffers from legal flaw as there was no criteria laid down by the Commission for award of marks in the interview test.
7. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, the counsel for the Commission supported the order of the Single Judge.
8. In the advertisement issued by the Commission as shown by Mr. S.N. Kumawat, it has been stated thus:
tc fdlh foKkiu ds vk/kkj ij izkIr vkosnu i=ksa dh la[;k vf/kd gksxh vkSj vk;skx ds fy, bu lHkh vH;FkhZ;ksa dk lk{kkRdkj djuk lqfo/kktud ;k laHko ugh gksxk rks vk;skx foKkiu esa fu/kkZfjr U;wure ;ksX;rkvksa vkSj vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij vFkok laoh{kk ijh{kk }kjk lk{kkRdkj gsrq vH;fFkZ;ks dh la[;k ;Fkksfpr lhek rd de dj ldrk gS A
9. Strangely, the petitioner has only placed on record some information notice called (sic) and not the copy of the advertisement. In the advertisement, it has been made clear to all the candidates that in the event of large number of applications, the Commission, if it considers to do so, shall hold the written examination by way of screening test and call for interview only those examines who possess the marks in the screening test prescribed by the Commission.
10. As a matter of fact, it appears that the Commission as a matter of policy has taken a decision that if number of applications exceed three times the posts so advertised, then number of candidates shall be called for interview on the basis of the screening test.
11. The procedure for direct recruitment provided in the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 may be immediately noticed by us. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1970 reads thus:
19. Scrutiny of Applications- The Commission shall scrutinise the applications received by them and require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these rules as seem to them desirable to appear before them for interview:
Provided that the decision of the Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate, shall be final.
12. Rule 20 of these Rules deals with the recommendation of the Commission. It provides thus:
20. Recommendations of the Commission:- The Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates, whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned, arranged in order of merit and forward the same to the appointing authority:
Provided that the Commission may also to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in order of merit to the appointing authority within 6 months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the appointing authority.
13. A close look at Rule 19 would show that upon receipt of the applications, the Commission scrutinizes the applications so received and require the qualified candidates for appointment as may be found desirable to appear for interview. The merit of the candidates is evaluated and assessed through the process of interview from amongst the candidates qualified for appointment who have been found suitable to be called for interview.
14. It is no longer a matter of legal debate that prescribing interview for selecting the candidates to a particular post possessing minimum academic qualifications is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Rather, selection by interview is one of the well accepted mode of selection. The statement of law expostulated by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and Ors. , without multiplying the authorities shall suffice. This is what the Supreme Court said in this regard.
But learned Counsel for the appellants raised a larger question that selection by interview is inherently repugnant to the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution, for, whatever may be the objective tests laid down, in the final analysis the awarding of marks is left to the subjective satisfaction of the selection committee and, therefore, it gives ample room for discrimination and manipulation. We cannot accept such a wide contention and condemn one of the well accepted mode of selection in educational institutions. James Hart in his "An introduction to Administrative Law" observes, at P. 180 thus:
A test or examination, to be competitive, must employ an objective standard of measure. Where the standard or measure is wholly subjective to the examiners it differs in effect in no respect from an uncontrolled opinion of the examiners and cannot be termed competitive." In the field of education there are divergent views as regards the mode of testing the capacity and calibre of students in the matter of admissions to Colleges. Orthodox educationists stand by the marks obtained by a student in the annual examination. The modern trend of opinion insists upon other additional tests, such as interview, performance in extra-curricular activities, personality test, psychiatric tests etc. Obviously we are not in a position to judge which method is preferable or which test is the correct one. If there can be manipulation or dishonesty in allotting marks at interviews, there can equally be manipulation in the matter of awarding marks in the written examinations. In the ultimate analysis, whatever method is adopted its success depends on the moral standards of the members constituting the selection committee and their sense of objectivity and devotion to duty. This criticism is mere a reflection on the examiners than on the system itself. The scheme of selection, however perfect it may be on paper, may be abused in practice. That it is capable of abuse is not a ground for quashing it. So long as the order lays down relevant objective criteria and entrusts the business of selection to qualified persons, this Court cannot obviously have any say in the matter. In this case the criteria laid down by the Government are certainly relevant in the matter of awarding marks at the interview. Learned counsel contends that the ability of a student on the basis of the said criteria can be better judged by other methods like certificate from the N.C.C. Commander or a medical board or a psychiatrist and should not be left to a body like the selection committee which cannot possibly arrive at the correct conclusion in a short time that would be available to it. This criticism does not affect the validity of the criteria, but only suggests a different method of applying the criteria than that adopted by the Committee. It is not for us to say which method should be adopted: that must be left to the authority concerned. If in any particular case the selection committee abuse its power in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, that may be a case for setting aside the result of a particular interview, as the High Court did in this case. We cannot, therefore, hold without better and more scientific material placed before us that selection by the interview in addition to the marks obtained in the written examination is itself bad as offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
15. Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma even did not dispute that the selection by interview is a legally permissible mode and is not repugnant to the constitutional provisions. His whole emphasis was that having conducted a written test, the marks obtained therein could not have been ignored/The argument though attractive is not legally sound. The written test that has been held by the Commission is to sort out the large number of applications that were received for 309 posts of Hindi Teacher Grade I. The statistics reveals that for 309 posts, 15608 applications were received. Obviously, for shortlisting the applications, and in consonance with the practice and policy adopted by the Commission, the conduct of written examination can not be faulted. In our considered view, thus, for the purpose and objective for which the written examination was conducted, the marks obtained therein could not have been taken into consideration while assessing the merit of the candidates.
16. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Manjit Singh and Ors. , the Supreme Court in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the report held thus:
But for such shortlisting as indicated above, it is not necessary to fix any minimum qualifying marks. Any candidate on the top. of the list at number 1 down up to 500 would obviously constitute the shortlisted zone of consideration for selection. For the purpose of elaboration it may be observed that in case some cut-off marks are fixed in the name of shortlisting of the candidates and the number of candidates obtaining such minimum marks, suppose is less than 100, in that event screening test itself will amount to a selection by excluding those who though possess the prescribed qualification and are eligible for consideration but they would be out of the field of consideration by reason of not crossing the cut-off marks as may be fixed by the recruiting body. This would not be a case of shortlisting. In shortlisting, as observed above, any number of candidates required in certain proportion of the number of vacancies, may be shortlisted in order of merit from Serial No. 1 upto the number of candidates required.
As observed earlier, for the purpose of shortlisting it would not at all be necessary to provide cut-off marks. Any number of given candidates could be taken out from the top of the list up to the number of the candidates required in order of merit. For example, there may be a situation where more than the required number of candidates may obtain marks, say for example, out of 10,000 if 8000 or 6000 candidates obtain 45% marks then all of them may have to be called for further tests and interview to obtain the given ratio of candidates, and the vacancy available. For 100 vacancies at the most 500 candidates need be called. If that is so, any candidate who is otherwise eligible up to the 500th position, whatever be the percentage above or below the fixed percentage would be eligible to be called for further tests. Thus the purpose of shortlisting would be achieved without prescribing any minimum cut-off marks.
17. We, therefore, hold that the written test (screening test as the Commission calls it) to shortlist candidates does not suffer from any legal infirmity. If the Commission had taken into consideration the marks obtained in the written examination for assessing the merit of the candidates, they would have acted in contravention of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970.
18. The action of the Commission also finds support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors. v. Dr. (Miss) Damyanti Dadhich etc. etc. 1983 RLR 473. In paragraph 26 of the report while dealing with almost identical rule obtaining in the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1971, the Division Bench held thus:
We may now proceed to examine if what the Commission has done in the instant case is in accordance with the provisions of this rule. As already stated, the Commission held screening tests in various subjects in order to weed out less suitable candidates and thus restrict the number of candidates to be called for interview. The Commission did not make any distinction between candidates possessing both Master's degree and doctorate degrees and those possessing merely Master's degrees inasmuch as both category of candidates were given one and the same test. What has happened in this process is that while some candidates like the present petitioners, who possess both Master's degree as well as doctorate degrees, have failed to qualify for interview, others who possess a Master's degree alone have come out successful and qualified for the interview. A candidate who could not even score the minimum qualifying marks in the written test in a particular subject cannot legitimately claim to be suitable for appointment as a lecturer in the subject. A written test is certainly as good a test if not better one as, an interview for adjudging a candidate's suitability for appointment as a Lecturer. It will now be for the Commission to interview both categories of successful candidates and select the more suitable ones for appointment as Lecturers in their respective subject. Of course, as the learned Advocate General pointed out, the Commission will certainly given some weightage in the interview to candidates possessing degrees beyond the Master's level as compared to candidates possessing a Master's degree alone. Such weightage is bound to be given having regard to that part of the provisions of the rule which follow the proviso reproduced above.
19. The first contention of the counsel for the appellant is, thus, over ruled.
20. Adverting now to the second submission of the counsel for the appellant, at the out-set we may observe that the writ petition lacks in material facts and particulars pertaining to this aspect. As a matter of fact, there is no specific challenge in the writ petition regarding want of criteria in awarding the marks in the interview. We carefully went through the entire writ petition and asked the counsel as to which paragraph of the writ petition deals with this aspect. Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the counsel for the appellant invited our attention to paragraph 7 of the writ petition in this regard. Paragraph 7 reads thus:
That the petitioner is otherwise working on the post of Teacher Grade-Ill pursuant to her selection and she has already completed 15 years service on the said post by now. The certificate of teaching experience so existing with the petitioner is being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-3. It is submitted that by virtue of appointment on the post of Teacher Grade I, the petitioner by and large will get the benefit of all past service otherwise there would be hardly any difference in her salary because in view of 15 years service, the petitioner is given due increments and benefit of selection scale. Even otherwise an appointee would be getting only fixed remuneration for a period of 2 years. Therefore, the petitioner would be getting status of post basically coupled with some benefit in terms of salary.
21. We are afraid, para 7 referred to by Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, even remotely does not touch the argument advanced by him. Since this contention has not been raised in the writ petition, we are not inclined to consider this aspect further. The second contention is also rejected.
22. In what we have said above, the appeal has to be dismissed and is dismissed. By way of foot-note, we clarify, though it is not necessary, that the interim order stands discharged upon dismissal of the written petition. The parties shall bear their own costs.