Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashwani Kumar & Anr. vs . State Of Rajasthan & Anr. on 27 October, 2014
Equivalent citations: 2015 LAB. I. C. 1889, 2015 (146) AIC (SOC) 30 (RAJ) (2015) 1 WLC (RAJ) 501, (2015) 1 WLC (RAJ) 501
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013
Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014
1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
:: O R D E R ::
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013
Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
&
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12859/2013.
Ravi Kumar Dave & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
&
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12987/2013
Kamal Kumar Singaria Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
&
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13082/2013
Mukesh Barsiwal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
&
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13861/2013
Shyam Kapari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
&
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6753/2014
Sandesh Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
&
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6944/2014
Bhura Ram Rojh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Order :::: 27th October, 2014.
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
REPORTABLE
Appearance:
Mr. Himmat Jagga, Mr. Kailash Jangid, for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG with
Ms. Suman Porwal & Mr. Vikas Choudhary, for the State.
Mr. S.K.M. Vyas, for the private respondents.
--
BY THE COURT:
1. These writ petitions, involving common controversy, are being decided by this common order. The facts are S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014 2/12 illustratively taken from the SBCWP No.13865/2013- Ashwani Kumar and Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the selection process held in pursuance of the Advertisement No.2013/2 dated 20.06.2013 issued by the respondent Mining & Geology Department, Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur, for holding the direct recruitment process for various posts including Mining Assistants, Chemical Assistant and Foreman etc. The said selection process was to be completed by holding a written test, interview as per the initial advertisement No.2013/1 dated 18.03.2013, however, by amending Notification vide Annex.3 dated 20.06.2013, the selection process was confined only to written test and the interview process was done away with. The sum and substance of the grievance raised by the present petitioners who could not be selected in the said selection process, is that the said written test was conducted by the respondent Mining Department through Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, whereas, as per Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Mines & Geological Subordinate Service Rules, 1960 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1960') such direct recruitment selection process can only be held by the appointing authority itself or by the Commission i.e. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and not by the University as has been done in the S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014 3/12 present case and, therefore, the entire selection process deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. The other ground raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions is that in the examination conducted for the said posts on 22.09.2013 by the University, at the time of examination, the answer sheets, question papers and even the admission cards of the candidates were collected by the invigilator(s)/officials of the University, and thus the candidates were left with no material to compare their answers with any published answer key, as no such answering key was uploaded on the website of the University or the appointing authority i.e. Mining Department, and as such no transparency was maintained in the selection process and the petitioners never knew their failure or success as no cut-off marks were announced by the respondent- Department.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that within a week of holding of the examination on 22.09.2013, appointment orders were issued on 29.09.2013 by the respondent Mining Department for the posts of Chemical Assistants in favour of 5 such candidates, who have been arrayed as private respondents No. 3 to 7 in the CW No.13865/2013. Thus, the said appointment appears to be based on some extraneous reasons rather than on merit of those S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014 4/12 candidates and the petitioners having not been selected in the selection process, were deprived of fair and reasonable opportunity of appointment on the said posts.
5. Mr. Himmat Jagga and Mr. Kailash Jangid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, vehemently submitted that even the representations made to the respondent Department about some wrong answers to the questions set in the said examination, were not attended to by the respondents and thus fairness and transparency of the selection process was not maintained by the respondent Department and the same, therefore, deserves to be quashed by this Court.
6. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, learned Addl. Advocate General and Ms. Suman Porwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department and Mr. S.K.M. Vyas learned counsel appearing for the selected candidates (private respondents) defended the selection process and urged that to maintain the transparency and to avoid leakage of the question papers only, the said job of holding of such examination was delegated to the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, and disclosure in this regard was deliberately not made in the advertisement itself to avoid any undue access and approach to the authorities of the University to avoid leakage of the papers as the same had become a rampart malpractice for various S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014 5/12 selection processes conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the recent past. The respondents in the reply to the writ petition have also averred that a fair evaluation of the examination was done by the authorities of the University and soon upon the declaration of the result for selection on the posts by the written test, appointment orders were issued in favour of selected incumbents on the basis of their higher merit position. They have also contended that as far as petitioner No.1, namely, Ashwani Kumar (Roll No.15264) and petitioner No.2, namely, Pradeep Kumar (Roll No.15256) obtained 74 and 69 marks respectively, in the examination conducted for the post of Chemical Assistants whereas the last cut-off marks of General category was 77 marks and, therefore, these petitioners having not secured more than the cut-off marks, could not be so offered the appointment. They have also stated that the result of said selection process was uploaded on the website of the Faculty of Management Studies, MLS University, Udaipur. The respondents have also contended that the University has not even been arrayed as a party-respondent in the present writ petition.
7. The delegation of job of holding of written examination in four phases on 22.09.2013 has been justified by the respondents to maintain the transparency and at the same time to maintain secrecy of the examination process and they S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014 6/12 have justified the same in their reply filed to the writ petitions.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the record and the respective pleadings filed by the parties, this Court is satisfied that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and they are, accordingly, dismissed. The reasons are as follows.
9. It is true that Rule 16 of the Rules of 1960 in part 4 of said Rule, provides for Procedure for Direct Recruitment, and applications to be invited by the Commission or by the appointing authority, by advertising the vacancies to be filled in the official gazette, but the said Rule nowhere prohibits delegation of holding of such direct recruitment process or selection process by the appointing authority to any other agency other than Commission (RPSC). Fraught and surrounded by the common and wide spread problem of paper leakage and use of unfair means by the candidates in the selection process and examination tests held for the said purposes, if the respondent Mining Department chose to delegate this work to a Government University, Faculty of Management Studies of M.L.S. University, to which no specific challenge has been laid either in the writ petitions or even at the subsequent stages when this disclosure has been made by the respondents in their reply to the writ petitions as well as in the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, is S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014 7/12 considered as a sufficient justification for delegating this work to the University, a responsible institution and a Government agency, to undertake this work. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the answer sheets and question papers and admission cards were taken back by the invigilators in the Examination Hall, is concerned, in the reply the respondents have stated that it was so done to avoid possible leakage of question papers as common examination was held for other posts as well on that very date. This justification, in the opinion of this Court, is found to be absolutely worthy of acceptance.
10. The respondent Department has specifically stated that after the selection process was over, the admission cards and question papers were returned back to the candidates on their respective addresses and the dispatch numbers and dates have been given in their reply. The respondent Department has thus maintained not only the transparency but have taken adequate measures also to safeguard the selection process of holding the written test by delegating it to an Agency, which was not only an independent and reputed body but was reliable in the opinion of the respondent Department and rightly so. Thus, the non-disclosure of this agency or University at the initial stage in the advertisement, does not entitle the petitioners to lay a S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014 8/12 challenge to the selection process itself on this ground. The answer key and the results are also said to have been uploaded on the website of the concerned Faculty of Management Studies of the University. The vague and bald averments made in the writ petition that some answers to some questions were wrong, does not lead anywhere. Neither the questions have been mentioned answers to which, according to petitioners were purportedly wrong, nor their purported wrong answers have been mentioned, nor any specific representation is said to have been made either to the respondent Department or to the University in this regard. More so, the University itself has not even been impleaded as party-respondent in this present writ petitions for the reasons best known to the petitioners.
11. It is trite law and as has been held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Lalit Mohan Sharma & Ors Vs. RPSC reported in 2005 (10) RDD 4483 that courts are not the experts of the subjects and, therefore, examining the validity of the answering to various questions cannot be examined by this Court much less in the writ jurisdiction as it is a matter of fact to be established with the relevant evidence before the authorities concerned themselves. This Court would not like to go even into these open and wild, vague and bald allegations made in this regard. The fairness and transparency in the selection process S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014 9/12 held by the respondent Mining Department in the present case has not been assailed in a reasonable and convincing manner by the petitioners. The presence of extraneous considerations and malafides cannot be inferred, if an expeditious exercise has been undertaken by the respondent Mining Department in making appointments soon after holding the examination within a week and that quickness and expedition, deserves to be appreciated.
12. The allegations of extraneous reasons and malafides for convincing the Courts enough to initiate an enquiry in such fields, have to be supported with proper evidence and particulars. No such material has been led before this Court in the present writ petitions and therefore, on the basis of such wild allegations that such expedition should treated as malafide per se on the part of the respondent, is hardly a legal argument deserving even a closer attention by this Court. The same is liable to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected.
13. Looking to the trend of this kind of litigation and virtual flood of such petitions filed with respect to every selection process, which is conducted by the State Government or its agencies including the RPSC, filing of such petitions on a host of grounds in which the allegations just fly, has become almost a fashion these days. No selection process or recruitment process is allowed to go without a judicial scrutiny called upon in the writ S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014 10/12 jurisdiction. This is very serious and dangerous trend demeaning and shaking the very faith and trust in the entrusted institutions, which are supposed to conduct these recruitment processes independently and in fair and transparent manner.
14. While making such judicial scrutiny, the courts may sometimes step out of their limits and also pronounce upon certain areas and issues, which does not specifically lie within their domain. This Court is of the considered opinion that a great amount of circumspection and reservation should be exercised while interfering in such academic and employment matters in extraordinary jurisdiction where the averments are supported only by affidavits and documentary evidence is hardly available before the courts in such matters. Quashing of such selection process or even directing the respondents to hold examinations again causes lot of administrative costs and inconvenience besides keeping the selected candidates under a Damocles Sword for a uncertain period of time. It cannot enure to the benefit of anybody, if ultimately such writ petitions are even dismissed at much later point of time. The present case is also of that very nature, where without first putting across their grievances before the respondent Department or the University itself, and seeking their reponse in the matter, the petitioners straightway filed these writ petitions soon after the issuance of S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014 11/12 the appointment orders in the month of September, 2013, in favour of selected candidates and in the mid of October, 2013 on 15.10.2013 itself, the present writ petitions were filed by the petitioners.
15. Since the respondents were called upon to show cause in the matter, the sequence of filing of pleadings, reply, rejoinder, reply to rejoinder and additional affidavits, which has taken approximately a year and the selected candidates having been arrayed as party-respondents also, had to incur the cost and face this litigation before this Court. As already stated above, the petitioners have not established any cogent grounds for successfully and validly assailing the selection process and merely on the basis of bald and vague averments, the entire selection process has been sought to be questioned merely on account of a wild allegation that the process undertaken by the respondent Department to collect the answer sheets, admission cards and question papers from the candidates was per se bad, whereas it was to avoid any leakage of question papers outside the examination, which could have a bearing on the other examinations held in a phased manner on the same date for other posts.
16. Admittedly, the relevant material was returned back to the candidates after the selection process was completed. No S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12865/2013 Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Along-with connected 6 writ petitions.
Order dated 27/10/2014 12/12 fault can be found on the part of the respondent Department in doing so. The delegation of the exercise of holding written exams in favour of responsible University, also does not call for any adverse comment on the respondent Department. Until and unless the holding of examination itself was established to be a sham and bogus exercise undertaken by the University. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petitions are bereft of any merit and it amounts to a gross abuse and misuse of process of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. The present writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.
(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/-
1 to 5 10 & 15