Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mandhata Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 October, 2022
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14496/2022
Mandhata Singh S/o Chawand Dan, Aged About 40 Years, Resident
Of Behind Government Hospital Jaitaran, District Pali (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chairman, Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board, Jaipur, State Institute Of Agriculture
Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Deputy Director, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur,
State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dashrath Singh Rathore.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 10/10/2022 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against deletion of questions and a prayer has been made that instead of deleting the questions, the respondents should have awarded bonus marks to the petitioner.
The petitioner applied for the post of Basic Computer Instructor pursuant to the advertisement dated 1.2.2022 (Annex.1). The petitioner obtained 70.3704 marks in paper-I and 37.5 marks in paper-II and in all obtained 107.8704 marks. The cut-off in petitioner's category was 80 marks, however, as the petitioner failed to obtain 40% marks in paper-II, his candidature has been cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the respondents have deleted four questions in paper-II and for the said deleted questions instead of making the question paper of 96 marks, they should have awarded four bonus marks to the candidates and, in case, four bonus marks are awarded to the petitioner, he would obtain the minimum 40% marks as required (Downloaded on 10/10/2022 at 08:19:07 PM) (2 of 2) [CW-14496/2022] and as he falls in overall merit, rejection of his candidature is not justified.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
The respondent - Selection Board, on objections being raised to various questions, have come to the conclusion that the four questions are required to be deleted and with 96 questions, the requirement of 40% marks comes to 38.4 marks, whereas, the petitioner has obtained 37.5 marks.
The claim made that instead of reducing of maximum marks, the respondents should have awarded bonus marks, lies with the realm of the recruiting authority and only because, in case, the petitioner is awarded four bonus marks, he would fall within eligibility criteria, cannot be a reason to question the validity of the decision taken by the competent recruiting authority.
In view of the above fact situation, no case for interference is made out in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 153-Sumit/-
(Downloaded on 10/10/2022 at 08:19:07 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)