Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Om Prakash S/O Jagdish Choudhary vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 December, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:49253]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20250/2023
1. Sourav S/o Ashok Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Khanga Ka Bas, Post Derwala, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
2. Dinesh Kumar Jakhar S/o Hawa Singh Jakhar, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Village Rainagar, Tehsil Neema Ka Thana,
Sikar, Rajasthan.
3. Sunil Kumar S/o Satyaveer Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Vpo Nalpur, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
4. Sandip Jakhar S/o Hawa Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Village Rainagar, Tehsil Neema Ka Thana, Sikar,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel And Training, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur.
3. The Director General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment
And Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Kota Rural
6. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi.
7. The Superintendent Of Police (First), Police
Telecommunication, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
8. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (2 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
Connected with
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 39/2024
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20605/2023
3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20606/2023
4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20608/2023
5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20615/2023
6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20616/2023
7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20618/2023
8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20619/2023
9. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20621/2023
10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20622/2023
11. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20623/2023
12. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20624/2023
13. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20637/2023
14. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20639/2023
15. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20640/2023
16. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20641/2023
17. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20647/2023
18. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20754/2023
19. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20765/2023
20. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20781/2023
21. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20789/2023
22. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 31/2024
23. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 37/2024
24. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 55/2024
25. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 58/2024
26. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 59/2024
27. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 67/2024
28. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 70/2024
29. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 71/2024
30. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 72/2024
31. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 73/2024
32. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 80/2024
33. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 86/2024
34. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 87/2024
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (3 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
35. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 90/2024
36. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 91/2024
37. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 92/2024
38. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 94/2024
39. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 95/2024
40. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 101/2024
41. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 105/2024
42. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 106/2024
43. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 107/2024
44. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 111/2024
45. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 116/2024
46. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 118/2024
47. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 124/2024
48. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 125/2024
49. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 127/2024
50. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 131/2024
51. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 132/2024
52. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 134/2024
53. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 144/2024
54. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 154/2024
55. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 156/2024
56. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 159/2024
57. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 160/2024
58. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 169/2024
59. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 172/2024
60. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 201/2024
61. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 202/2024
62. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 206/2024
63. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 207/2024
64. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 212/2024
65. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 229/2024
66. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 230/2024
67. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 243/2024
68. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 247/2024
69. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 318/2024
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (4 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
70. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 319/2024
71. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 320/2024
72. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 334/2024
73. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 369/2024
74. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 384/2024
75. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 397/2024
76. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2024
77. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 424/2024
78. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 427/2024
79. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 431/2024
80. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 433/2024
81. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 435/2024
82. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 444/2024
83. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 445/2024
84. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 450/2024
85. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 452/2024
86. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 453/2024
87. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 454/2024
88. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 458/2024
89. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 461/2024
90. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 463/2024
91. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 468/2024
92. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 474/2024
93. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 501/2024
94. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 508/2024
95. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 509/2024
96. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 535/2024
97. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 557/2024
98. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 631/2024
99. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 633/2024
100. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 637/2024
101. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654/2024
102. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 673/2024
103. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 679/2024
104. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 702/2024
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (5 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
105. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 847/2024
106. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 853/2024
107. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 967/2024
108. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1079/2024
109. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1154/2024
110. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1290/2024
111. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1433/2024
112. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1588/2024
113. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1633/2024
114. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1664/2024
115. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1854/2024
116. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1887/2024
117 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1899/2024
118. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2815/2024
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghunandan Sharma
Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava
Mr. Anand Sharma
Mr. Nikhil Kumawat
Mr. Kritika Rajawat
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
Mr. Aamir Khan
Mr. Akshit Gupta
Ms. Pragya Seth
Mr. Movil Jeenwal
Mr. Gunjan Sharma
Mr. Griraj Rajoria
Mr. Kapil Kumar Khandelwal
Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki
Mr. Shailendra Kumar
Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG with
Ms. Harshita Thakral
Mr. BS Chhaba, AAG with
Mr. Avinash Choudhary
Mr. Rahul Gupta
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (6 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
REPORTABLE
Reserved on :: 26/11/2024
Pronounced on :: 12/12/2024
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the
controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and
predominantly defined by the challenge raised regarding the
correctness and transparency in the selection process for the post
of constable (in pursuance to advertisement dated 03.08.2023)
whereby the respondents have not called for fifteen times of
candidates qua each district. Consequently, considering the fact
that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions
of law and fact; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on
behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
20250/2023 titled as Sourav and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan
and Ors, is taken up as the lead petition. It is cautiously clarified
that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions,
pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not
vis-à-vis the questions of law to be determined by this Court; the
instant judgment shall be applicable on all the petitions connected
herein/henceforth on mutatis mutandis basis.
2. The lead petition Sourav and Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors is filed with the following prayers:
"i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature thereof thereby, the impugned Schedule
for PET/PST may kindly be quashed and set aside
and thereby respondents be directed to issue fresh
schedule for PET/PST to the post of Constable after
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (7 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
passing 15 times candidates for PET/PST Test as
per the condition No.10 of the advertisement dated
03.08.2023 as well as Standing Order for the post
of Constable.
ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may
kindly be directed to proceed the recruitment for
the post of Constable in accordance with Rule 17 of
Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989."
FACTUAL BACKDROP
3. The nitty-gritty of the instant dispute is that the
respondents issued an advertisement dated 03.08.2023 inviting
applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Constable
under the provisions of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service
Rules, 1989 as amended (hereinafter, referred to as Rules of
1989). The said advertisement categorically stated the intake for
3578 posts (of Constable) for the state of Rajasthan. In the said
advertisement along with the scheme of examination the other
relevant information, for instance, the minimum eligibility criteria
i.e. Common Eligibility Test (CET) Examination, horizontal and
vertical reservation, mode of examination and relevant dates and
schedule were specified.
4. Subsequently, the Director General of Police, Rajasthan,
Jaipur issued a standing order dated 27.07.2023 wherein, it was
clarified that all the candidates who have filled applications for the
post of Constable shall be invited on the basis of merits scored by
them and fifteen times of category wise vacancies published for
the first phase (PET/PST). It was also clarified that only the
candidates who have qualified the PET examination shall be
permitted to appear in the PST examination.
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (8 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL
APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONERS
5. In this backdrop, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners had averred that the petitioners upon qualifying the
CET examination, 2022 applied for the post of Constable in
pursuance of the advertisement dated 03.08.2023. It was further
contended that as per the advertisement and the corrigendum
thereof, 3578 posts for Constable(s) were advertised, moreover,
as per the condition 10 of the said advertisement the said number
of posts were bifurcated district wise/ post wise/ category wise/
gender wise among the number of vacancies. Withal, the said
advertisement also elucidated that the admit cards for PET/PST
examination shall only be issued to the candidates fifteen times
less in the priority/merit list.
6. The controversy arose when the respondents issued
admit cards for PET/PST examinations to candidates less than
fifteen times of the total number of vacancies. For illustration, it
can be noted that for the District of Kota (Rural) 136 posts were
advertised and fifteen times of the said number of vacancies is
2040 nonetheless the respondents issued admit card qua 1723
candidates only. Similarly, qua the 417 posts for Police Tele-
Communication, the respondents called only 5319 candidates
against fifteen times, which are 6255 candidates. Similarly for
District of Sirohi, admit cards were issued to only qua 1729
candidates against 134 posts in comparison to fifteen times, which
is 2010 candidates.
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (9 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
7. Precisely, it can be noted that the respondents had
issued admit cards to less than the prescribed number of intake
and the said act of the respondents had caused grave prejudice to
the rights of the petitioners as per the governing statute and the
fundamental rights of the petitioner as enshrined under the
provisions of Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel had further averred that the said action of the
respondents is void-ab-initio, illegal and contrary to the provisions
of the advertisement and the standing order dated 27.07.2023.
Moreover, the said recruitment was initiated in a non-transparent
and bias manner.
8. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned
counsel had placed reliance upon the provisions of the Rules of
1989 - Rule 21 and 2(a), Article 309 of the Constitution of India
and upon Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial
Services (Common Eligibility Test) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter,
referred to as Rules of 2022).
9. Sequentially, learned counsel had placed reliance upon
the order dated 09.02.2024 passed in Sapna Jaiswal Vs. State
of Rajasthan registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2126/2024, and submitted that considering the opinion
formulated therein; the provisions of the advertisement dated
03.08.2024 and the standing order dated 27.07.2023, the
impugned action of the respondents of not issuing admit cards to
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (10 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
candidates more than fifteen times than the prescribed vacancies
is perverse.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL
APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENTS
10. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents had stoutly opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and had made manifold contentions including the misjoinder of parties in the instant batch of petitions.
11. Learned Advocate General had apprised the Court with the fact that in the instant batch of petitions sans avowing the territorial jurisdiction the petitioners all-over from the state of Rajasthan are arrayed. Moreover, the petitioners sans narrating the discrete cause of action have filed the instant petitions, stating illustrations from various districts, qua which categorical reply on merits cannot be filed.
12. Consecutively, learned counsel had placed reliance upon the conditions of the advertisement dated 03.08.2023 more particularly upon condition nos. 3(1) and 10. The said conditions pertain to the physical efficiency and standard process qua selection/recruitment. Further, while relying upon the provisions of Rule 23A of the Rules of 1989, it was averred that the recruitment for the said post of Constable was on District/Unit basis, moreover the CET examination that was stated to be the minimum requisite (Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:49253] (11 of 24) [CW-20250/2023] condition for the said intake was also conducted at the State level. For the sake of convenience the relevant Rule from the Rules of 1989 is reproduced herein below:
"23A. Recruitment to the post of
Constable:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, there shall be no interview for selection to the post of Constable and selection to the post of Constable shall be made by the following Board in accordance with the scheme of examination and procedure specified by the Director General of Police:-
(a) "Inspector General of Police Range"/Officer of equivalent rank in the concerned Unit
-Chairman
(b) Superintendent of Police/Commandant of the concerned District/Unit -Member
(c) One Officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police/Commandant nominated by the Director General of Police. -Member Explanation- the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police may constitute more than one Board for the purpose of selection of candidates for the post of Constables.
(2) Where the Director General decides to hold State level written examination, the candidate applying for such examination shall have to indicate the recruitment unit for which application is submitted and such application of the candidate shall be considered for recruitment only for the recruitment unit applied for.
(3) The recruitment to the post of Constable shall be district/recruitment unit base notwithstanding the fact that a common written examination is being held at the State Level."(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (12 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
13. Further, learned counsel had apprised the Court with the fact that as per the standing order dated 10.10.2022, the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board issued an advertisement bearing no. 10/2022 for conducting the CET examination and the same was the minimum eligibility criteria for the vacancies issued under the advertisement dated 03.08.2023. Additionally, while placing reliance upon the Rule 6 of the Rules, 2022 it was contended that the sole authority to determine the minimum marks qua the said examination is the exam-conducting authority. It is pertinent to note that the exam-conducting authority as per their wisdom and relevant information of the candidates; taking note of the eligibility criteria vis-à-vis the said selection process and as per the Schedule II, the respondents have made the said decisions.
14. Moreover, if momentarily assumed that the respondents have not called exactly fifteen times of the said posts/vacancies, the respondents have duly complied with the reservation policy. Nevertheless, as per condition nos. 3 and 10 of the said advertisement, it was clarified that the fifteen times of candidates in proportionality with the number of vacancies has to be calculated under the given criteria of District / unit/ category/ respective gender, on merit and no deviation of the same can be carried out. Henceforth, qua the Constable Recruitment process for the year 2023 the due procedure was followed whilst taking note of the various categories and reservations. (Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:49253] (13 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
15. It was further contended that as per the advertisement dated 03.08.2024 the minimum marks, after normalization qua the CET examination under the General category, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes and TSP/Non-TSP areas were distinguishably determined i.e. 120 marks (40%) in General Category candidates, 108 (36%) in Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Category and 90 marks (30%) in TSP area. In correlation with the said categories, fifteen times candidates were called however, under the exceptional circumstances the said condition was not strictly followed and admit cards were issued qua the maximum number of the eligible candidates. The said exceptional circumstances are enumerated herein below:
15.1 If the candidate has scored less than the minimum requisite marks for being eligible.
15.2 The number of vacancies qua each district varies and was not in a uniform number.
15.3 In a number of districts less than expected number of applications was received.
16. Consequentially, following the mandate as per the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1989, whereby it is categorically stated that in no condition/situation there can be relaxation to the minimum marks, unless and until certain reservation policy prevails.(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (14 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
17. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned Advocate General had apprised the Court with the statistics released and relied upon by the respondents.
"dkWULVscy HkrhZ&2023 esa foKkfir inksa ds fo:) 15 xq.kk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks 'kkjhfjd n{krk@ekirkSy ijh{kk gsrq vkeaf=r ugha fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj esa nk;j fofHkUu fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa fnukad 27-05-2024 dks lquokbZ ds nkSjku pkgh xbZ lwpuk fuEukuqlkj izsf"kr gS%& 1 lhbZVh ¼fu;e&6½ ds vk/kkj ij ;ksX; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr U;wure izkIrkadksa ds vuqlkj miyC/k dqy vH;FkhZ ,oa dqy in%& NTSP S.N. Category Marks No. of Candidate No. of post 1- GENERAL-EWS 120(40%) 49105 261 2- OBC-NON CREAMY 120(40%) 230704 611 3- GENERAL 120(40%) 25097 986 4- MBC-NON CREAMY 120(40%) 29931 123 5- S.C. 108(36%) 100368 471 6- S.T. 108(36%) 69831 320 TOTAL 505036 2772 uksV&foKkfir in 2772 ds fo:) 505036 vH;FkhZ ekStwn gS] tks 15 xq.kk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds LFkku ij 182 xq.kk vH;FkhZ miyC/k gSA TSP S.N. Category Marks No. of Candidate No. of post 1- GENERAL 90(30%) 77454 118 2- S.C. 90(30%) 3682 17 3- S.T. 90(30%) 1635 97 TOTAL 82771 232 UkksV&foKkfir in 232 ds fo:) 82771 vH;FkhZ ekStwn gS] tks 15 xq.kk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds LFkku ij 356 xq.kk vH;FkhZ miyC/k gSA NTSP EXMAN S.N. Category Marks No. of Candidate No. of post 1- GENERAL-EWS 105(35%) 94 33 2- OBC-NON CREAMY 105(35%) 1477 78 3- GENERAL 105(35%) 526 248 4- MBC-NON CREAMY 105(35%) 189 9 5- S.C. 93(31%) 55 60 6- S.T. 93(31%) 49 40 TOTAL 2390 468 TSP EXMAN S.N. Category Marks No. of Candidate No. of post 4- GENERAL 75(25%) 3 54 5- S.C. 75(25%) 0 4 6- S.T. 75(25%) 1 48 TOTAL 4 106 uksV&lhbZVh esa ek= 2946 Hkw0iw0 lSfud lfEefyr gq;s ftuesa ls 1289 us gh iqfyl dkWULVscy gsrq vkosnu fd;k gS] ftlds dkj.k 7653 Hkw0iw0 lSfud vH;FkhZ de miyC/k gq;s gSA oxZokj U;wure fu/kkZfjr lhbZVh izkIrkad ds vk/kkj ij foKkfir dqy 3578 inksa ds fo:) 15 xq.kk vH;FkhZ 53670 dh rqyuk esa 587807 ¼164 xq.kk½ vH;FkhZ vkosnu djus gsrq miyC/k FksA vr% oxZokj fu/kkZfjr U;wure izkIrkad esa vfrfjDrf'kFkyu fn;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA (Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:49253] (15 of 24) [CW-20250/2023]
18. Subsequently, learned Advocate General had placed reliance upon the ratio enunciated in Chattar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (1996) 11 SCC 742 wherein, under akin factual narrative Hon'ble Apex Court had opined that in such cases it would thus be seen that Rule 13 read with Rule 7 and Schedule III does not prescribe any minimum of the lowest range of marks for calling the candidates for appearing in the main examination hence, the same shall be examined and released by the exam conducting authority. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment encapsulated in Dharamveer Tholia & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2000(3) WLC
399.
19. It was further submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court with a limited prayer and have not challenged the Rules and the Circular, as applicable. Moreover, the petitioners have failed to secure higher marks than the last candidate, who was called as per the procedure i.e. the required cut-off. The Inspector General of Police (Recruitment & Promotion Board) had informed vide letter dated 25.01.2024 that in some districts/units due to shortage of applications, candidates equivalent to fifteen times the advertised post could not be called for the PET/PST examination. Withal, candidates equivalent to fifteen times of advertised posts were called for the PST/PET in the respective categories of petitioner nos. 1 to 7 and 11 to 13 (In SBCWP No. 39/2024). Nevertheless, the petitioners could not secure the required cut-off to be called for PST/PET and therefore (Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:49253] (16 of 24) [CW-20250/2023] were not called. The vacancies as advertised in the said advertisement were 3578 in number and no post is kept vacant as on date, as a result to any petition therefore, merely because of few persons, who are not in merit and have secured less than cut off marks, the entire process cannot be affected. Lastly, it was averred that the order dated 21.12.2023 was an ex-parte order, hence, ought to be vacated/dismissed.
20. Learned counsel appearing for other parties have also endorsed the contentions made by the learned Advocate General and have vehemently opposed the averments made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
21. Upon an assiduous scanning of the record, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, considering the judgments cited at the Bar and taking note of the arguments averred by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court at this juncture, deems it appropriate to jot down indubitable facts:-
21.1 That vide advertisement dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure-
2), applications were invited for CET examination 2022. 21.2 That vide advertisement dated 03.08.2023 the respondents invited applications from the eligible candidates, for the post (3578 vacancies) of Constable throughout the territory of Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:49253] (17 of 24) [CW-20250/2023] 21.3 That the said advertisement categorically states the relevant information including the minimum requisites, educational & other mandatory qualifications, the provisions regarding distribution of seats/ allocation of seats to each district and the reservation policy.
21.4 That for the General category candidates 120 marks, for SC/ST category 108 marks and for TSP (Triable Sub Plan Area) 90 marks were fixed as minimum marks, after normalization under the CET (Senior Secondary Level) - 2022 examination for the said vacancy.
22. Ergo, considering the aforementioned, juxtaposing the averments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant batch of petitions for the following reasons:
22.1 As per the condition nos. 3 (1) and 10 of the advertisement dated 03.08.2023 for PET and PST i.e. efficiency & standard physical test, merit and eligibility list for fifteen times (of the total number of seats) calculation for the candidates was to be drawn category-wise, post-wise and gender-wise. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned condition it can be noted that for calling fifteen times of the candidates (of the total number of seats) for PET and PST, the merit was to be prepared category-
wise from the stage one and not qua the entire vacancies i.e. 3578. For the sake of succinctness, the relevant conditions from the said condition are reproduced herein below: (Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (18 of 24) [CW-20250/2023] "3- 'kkjhfjd n{krk ,oa ekirkSy ijh{kk%& I. leku ik=rk ijh{kk ¼lhfu;j lSd.Mjh ysoy½&2022 ds vkosndksa esa ls lacaf/kr ftyk@;wfuV dh inokj@oxZokj@efgyk@iq:"k dh foKkfir fjfDr;ksa ds vuqlkj ofj;rk@eSfjV Øe esa 15 xq.kk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks gh 'kkjhfjd n{krk ¼nkSM+½ ,oa ekirkSy ijh{kk ds fy, vkWuykbZu izos'k&i= tkjh fd, tk,axsA Mkd ls dksbZ Hkh izos'k&i= ugha Hkstk tk,xkA 10- 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk ¼Physical Efficiency Test½%&
(i) vkosndksa esa ls lacaf/kr ftyk@;wfuV dh inokj@oxZokj@efgyk@iq:"k dh foKkfir fjfDr;ksa ds vuqlkj ofj;rk@eSfjV Øe esa 15 xq.kk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks 'kkjhfjd n{krk ¼nkSM+½ ,oa ekirkSy ijh{kk ds fy, vkWuykbZu izos'k&i= tkjh fd, tk,axsA 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk esa lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa dks 'kkjhfjd ekirkSy ijh{kk esa lfEefyr fd;k tk;sxkA vH;FkhZ 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus ls iwoZ jktdh; fpfdRld ls 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk ¼nkSM+½ esa Hkkx ysus gsrq 'kkjhfjd :i ls ;ksX; gksus dk izek.k&i= lEcfU/kr dsUnz ij vko';d :i ls izLrqr djsxkA mlds mijkUr gh vH;FkhZ dks 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk esa lfEefyr fd;k tk;sxkA"
22.2 While placing reliance upon the definition of "CET" as described under the Rules of 2022, (formulated on 23.05.2022) it can be deduced that the sole authority to set the eligibility criteria qua the said examination shall be the exam conducting authority -
Board. For the sake of convenience the relevant definition from the Rules of 2022, is reproduced herein below:
"2. Definitions -(1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) x x x x
(b) "CET" means Common Eligibility Test, conducted by the Board for deciding the eligibility of a candidate for appearing in examination for recruitment to the post mentioned in the schedule(s) appended to these rules;"
22.3 Further, as per Rule 6 of the Rules of 2022 (which has an over-riding effect) categorically states that in no condition/situation there can be relaxation to the minimum marks. (Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:49253] (19 of 24) [CW-20250/2023] Moreover, the discretion and opinion of the recruiting agency shall be final until contrary to the settled position of law. In the matter in hand the recruiting agency has classified and specified 120 marks qua general category candidate, 108 marks qua the candidate belonging to SC/ST category and 90 marks for the candidates of TSP area, respectively. Thence, it can be deduced that the said categorization is in due compliance with the governing statute. For the sake of convenience the relevant Rules from the Rules of 2022, is reproduced herein below:
6. Common Eligibility Test for Subordinate and Ministerial Services:-Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule governing direct recruitment to the posts of Subordinate and Ministerial Services mentioned in Schedule-I and Schedule-II, no person shall be eligible to appear in written examination or interview or both conducted for selection to the posts mentioned in Schedule-I or Schedule-II, as the case may be, if he fails to obtain such minimum marks in the CET, as may be determined by the recruiting agency. While determining the minimum marks, the recruiting agency shall consider that fifteen times of candidates of total number of vacancies advertised for the post mentioned in Schedule-I or Schedule-II, as the case may be, will be eligible to apply for vacancies so advertised but in the said range all those candidates who secure the same marks as may be fixed by the recruiting agency for any lower range will be admitted in written examination or interview or both conducted for selection to the posts mentioned in Schedule-I or Schedule-II, as the case may be:
Provided that, if the recruiting agency is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates belonging to reserved category are not available on the basis of general standard for appearing in the written examination or interview or both (Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:49253] (20 of 24) [CW-20250/2023] conducted for recruitment on the post mentioned in Schedule-I or Schedule-II, as the case may be, relaxed standard may be applied by the recruiting agency for admitting candidates belonging to such reserved category so that sufficient number of candidates in that category are available to appear in the written examination or interview or both. For this purpose, the zone of consideration of fifteen times the total approximate number of vacancies shall stand relaxed. However, candidates so additionally qualified to appear in written examination or interview or both will be eligible for selection to the posts reserved for respective categories only.
11. Admission to the Common Eligibility Test.-
(1) X X X X (2) X X X X (3) The recruitment to the post mentioned in Schedule-I or Schedule-II shall be made as per the provisions of relevant service rules. Mere appearing in the CET and having obtained score shall not guarantee a job to a candidate. The candidates will have to necessarily appear and qualify the written examination or interview or both conducted by the recruiting agency and will also have to meet the other criteria laid down in the relevant service rules."
22.4 Withal, considering that the provisions of Rule 23(A)(3) of the Rules of 1989, as the examination was conducted District- wise/ unit-wise and upon receiving less than the expected applications, the respondent-State, for the reasons beyond their control, had called the candidates less than fifteen times the total number of vacancies. Besides that the applicability of the conditions of the advertisement was duly made and the same is the furnished before this Court by way of tabular chart (reproduced hereinabove). From the said tabulated information it (Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:49253] (21 of 24) [CW-20250/2023] can be noted that qua the first category (NTSP area) of General EWS, OBC - Non creamy layer, SC/ST, for 2772 posts, 5,05,036 candidates applied which is 182 times of the vacancies and not restricted to fifteen times. For TSP area qua 232 posts, 82,771 candidates applied which is 356 times and not fifteen times. 22.5 Further, considering the geographical conditions and hassles qua the state of Rajasthan it can be noted that qua various districts like Jaisalmer the number of vacancies vary from the other districts moreover, less than expected forms were received qua that particular district. Therefore, the respondents had called the maximum number of candidates as per the scheme, eligibility criteria and the marks scored by the candidates. 22.6 Further, reliance can be placed upon the dictum encapsulated in Chattar Singh & Ors. (supra).
"12. Shri Badri Das Sharma, learned counsel for the Public Service Commission, contended that main part of Rule 13 is that the Public Service Commission would prescribe minimum cut off marks out of the aggregate marks secured by the general candidates in the Preliminary Examination conducted as per Rule 7 read with Third Schedule. From among the candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion and candidates numbering 15 times the posts shall be summoned by them for Main Examination. If more candidates should secure same cut off marks, all will be called for Main Examination. If the candidates are more than 15 times the posts, only that number, and all candidates who secure the minimum cut off marks, irrespective of whether it exceeded 15 times or not are to be permitted to write the Main Examination. This interpretation is consistent with the main part of Rule 13. The operation of the proviso should be extended only in cases where the (Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:49253] (22 of 24) [CW-20250/2023] SCs and STs do not come up to the minimum of 15 times even after getting 5% of the minimum cut-off marks in the lowest range. Those candidates who secured further lowest of 5% marks less than the lowest range of general candidates will be called to appear for the Main Examination. The Rule thus worked out by the Public Service Commission is consistent with the spirit and letter of Rule
13. He also contends that though OBCs were declared eligible for the selection to the said services and had 21% of the vacancies reserved for them, the OBCs and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are distinct classes. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been dealt with separately by the Constitution. All OBCs are not identified under the Constitution to get the benefit under Article 16(4) or 15(4); those, among them, identified by a Commission Appointed by the President under Article 340 of the Constitution and accepted by the State Government or Central Government and notified in the Gazette as OBCs alone are treated as a Class but they cannot be confused with the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who would stand a separate class. The learned minority Judge was not right in holding that Article 14 was violated.
20. As regards the preparation of separate list of General, OBCs, SCs, STs and physically handicapped, in view of the fact that the Latest amendment has made explicit what was implicit in Rule 13, we are of the view that separate lists are required to be published by the Service Commission in respect of the candidates in the respective categories so as to make up number of candidates 15 times the notified or anticipated posts/vacancies so as to enable them to appear in the Main Examination. It is true that the amendment is prospective in operation. However, it does not detract from the efficiency of Rule 13 originally made. In view of the above, the Public Service Commission is directed to call all those candidates that constitute 15 times the posts/vacancies notified or anticipated in terms of the above declaration of law so as to enable them to appear in the Main Examination."(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:49253] (23 of 24) [CW-20250/2023] (Emphasis laid) 22.7 Further, reliance can be placed upon the ratio passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2634/2013 titled as Tej Prakash & Ors. vs. the Rajasthan High Court & Ors. and Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512; wherein it is categorically opined that the rules of the games cannot be changed once the concerned examination/ recruitment process has already commenced. 22.8 Moreover, upon a perusal of the order passed in Sapna Jaiswal (supra) it is noted that the same is an interim order and hence cannot be considered as a binding precedent hereby.
23. Thence, it can be deduced that the said recruitment was conducted in an unbiased, transparent and fair manners, duly complying with the conditions as spelled out in the advertisement dated 03.08.2023 and taking specific note of the geographical and structural warrants of the state of Rajasthan; that the said number of vacancies i.e. 3578 were sub-categorized and bifurcated on the basis of Districts and Units; that the respondents upon due consideration of the number of applications received and merit scored by the candidates have issued the admit cards to the eligible candidates; that candidates equivalent to fifteen times of advertised posts were called for the PST/PET in the respective categories of petitioner nos. 1 to 7 and 11 to 13 (In SBCWP No. 39/2024), nevertheless, the petitioners could not secure the required cut-off to be called for PST/PET and therefore were not called; that the in the instant recruitment process, not only fifteen times but under the category of NTSP area and TSP area 505036 (Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:49253] (24 of 24) [CW-20250/2023] and 82771 candidates have appeared against 2772 and 232 posts, which shows that 182 times and 356 times candidates have appeared, the same reflects the large scope, bonafide participation and consideration of the candidates; that the interpretation of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2022, advertisement's condition Nos. 3(1) and 10 and judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the calculation of fifteen times of the candidates under respective categories at the initial level is embedded and permissible; that the respondent-recruitment agencies have complied with the said provisions and have followed the ratio encapsulated in Chattar Singh & Ors. (supra); that only in exceptional districts and categories like Ex-serviceman or where the candidates have applied disproportional or have not secured minimum standard marks, the recruitment agency chose not to relax the minimum cut-off marks, albeit act in consonance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2022; that considering the precedent enunciated in Manjusree (Supra) it in unambiguous that the Rules of the games cannot be changed once the recruitment has commenced, therefore, no palpable error is determined in the act of the respondents.
24. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the instant batch of petitions being bereft of any merits stands dismissed. No orders as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Preeti Asopa /S-346-465 (Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 12:27:41 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)