Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mool Chand Tanwar And Ors vs R. P. S. C., Ajmer And Anr ... on 3 February, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2023/RJJD/003761]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4984/2010
1. Mool Chand Tanwar son of Shri Taga Ram aged about 43
years, Resident of Ambedkar Colony, Barmer.
2. Rajpal Kherwa son of Shri Jaimal Ram, aged about 42
years, Resident of 4-C027, Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar.
3. Bhim Singh son of Shri Hari Ram, aged about 31 years,
Resident of village and post Naam, Tehsil Nadbai via
Sersena, District Bharatpur.
4. Gajendra Kumar son of Shri N.J. Singh, aged about 26
years, Resident of H. No. 349, Shingar Chawari,
Bhajanganj, Ajmer.
5. Dinesh Kumar son of Shri Dhoora Ram, aged about 38
years, Resident of Plot No.931, Indra Colony, Jaisalmer.
6. Ram Babu son of Shri Jawahar Singh, aged about 32 years,
Resident of Gyandeep Vidhyaniketan, Harish Chandra
Colony, Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar.
7. Himmat Singh son of Shri Bhajan Lal, aged about 36 years,
Resident of village Guhawali Post Astawan, Tehsil Kumher,
District Bharatpur.
8. Nathoo Ram son of Shri Channa Ram, aged about 36 years,
Resident of Quarter No.1, Bera Road, CPWD Division Office,
Bera Road, Jaisalmer.
9. Vikash Jatav son of Shri Ratan Jatav, aged about 24 years,
Resident of village Gohnoli, Teshil Mehwa, District Dausa.
10. Meetha Lal Bairwa son of Shri Amba Lal Bairwa, Resident of
village Sardiknagar, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk.
11. Kheemraj Parihar son of Shri Narsinga Ram Parihar, aged
about 30 years, AD-27, Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer.
12. Sunil Inkia son of Shri Pusa Ram, aged about 23 years, 4-B
Nehru Colony, Panch Batta, Ratanada, Jodhpur.
13. Rajendra Singh Sehra son of Shri Samandar Singh Sehra,
aged about 36 years, Resident of 51, Gandhi Vihar,
Sanganer Airport, Jaipur.
14. Anil Kumar Meena son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Meena, aged
about 29 years, Resident of Shankar Vihar Colony, Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur.
15. Yogesh Kumar Bakolia son of Shri Laxmichand Bakolia,
aged about 40 years, C/o Shri N.L. Morya, Ganj Kamla
Bawdi, Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 03/02/2023 at 11:01:40 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003761] (2 of 5) [CW-4984/2010]
16. Kamlesh Chandel son of Shri Badri Lal Chandel, aged about
35 years, Resident of village & post Anwa via Dooni, Tehsil
Devli, District Tonk.
17. Prema Ram son of Birma Ram, aged about 28 years,
Resident of village & post Parewar, District Jailsalmer.
18. Subhash Kanwaria son of B.R. Kanwaria, aged about 36
years, Resident of B-261, 10B Scheme, Gopalpura Bypass
Road, Jaipur.
19. Arjun Singh Bhasker son of Nathu Ram, aged about 46
years, Resident of Plot No.786, Ram Nagar Colony, Shastri
Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through
its Secretary.
2. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department
of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Thanvi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Joshi, through VC and
Mr. Vikram Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT Order 03/02/2023 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, inter-alia, questioning the validity of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan State Engineering Service (Direct Recruitment Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1991, whereby minimum 35% marks in each of the general papers and a minimum of 40% in aggregate for the written test have been provided. Further challenge was laid to the process of scaling adopted by the respondents.
By order dated 21.05.2010, while admitting the writ petition it was directed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners' (Downloaded on 03/02/2023 at 11:01:40 PM) [2023/RJJD/003761] (3 of 5) [CW-4984/2010] candidature may be considered by the RPSC provisionally and they may be allowed to appear in the interview (personality and viva- voce examinations) subject to final decision of the writ petition.
Pursuant to said interim order, the petitioners were permitted to appear in the personality and viva-voce test way back in the year 2010. On 01.04.2013, the interim order granted by the Court was confirmed.
On 19.05.2016, it was submitted on behalf of respondent Commission that for said selection process, the marks on the basis of scaling method have been done away and the result has been finalized on the basis of raw marks.
By order dated 23.01.2023, the respondent Commission was directed to produce the result pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court.
The result has been produced alongwith cutoff, wherein though few candidates appears to have obtained marks more than the cutoff meant for their category, though they were ineligible in terms of Rule 14 but participated in further selection process under the interim order. Apparently on account of the fact that the petitioners having lost interest in the petition, they did not pursue the present litigation and did not even seek any adjudication of the present petition or sought declaration of the result.
Learned counsel appearing for the Commission made submissions that the recruitment was initiated in the year 2008, which is long over and thereafter two recruitment(s) have been held by the RPSC and as none of the candidate selected/accorded appointment pursuant to the Recruitment-2008, has been impleaded as party respondent to the present petition therefore, (Downloaded on 03/02/2023 at 11:01:40 PM) [2023/RJJD/003761] (4 of 5) [CW-4984/2010] essentially the petition has been rendered infructuous, as the petitioners on account of above aspects, are not entitled to any relief.
Further submissions were made on merits that the plea raised that the provisions of Rule 14 pertaining to minimum marks cannot be made applicable to the persons belonging to reserved category has no substance as the same essentially seeks enforcement of the relaxation for reserved category candidates, which is impermissible. Submissions have also been made that the plea raised based on Rule 16 of the Rules has no basis and even on merits, the petitioners have no case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that merely because the result was not produced by the respondents at the relevant time, cannot be made a reason for claiming that the petition has been rendered infructuous. Further submissions were made that as the petitioners belong to the reserved category i.e. SC/ST, they are entitled to relaxation in the minimum marks and therefore, the provisions of Rule 14 are bad in view of provisions of Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India; and that besides the above, even as per provision of Rule 16 (2) of the Rules, the requirement of minimum marks under Rule 14 cannot be applied to the petitioners as the said provision specifically provides that even if the candidates belonging to reserved category failed to obtain the minimum marks in viva-voce or aggregate, they have to be accorded appointment and therefore, the submissions made by the RPSC have no substance.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. (Downloaded on 03/02/2023 at 11:01:40 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003761] (5 of 5) [CW-4984/2010] So far as the plea raised seeking to question the validity of Rule 14 of the Rules providing for minimum marks qua the candidates belonging to the reserved category is concerned, the same apparently has no substance, inasmuch as Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India are enabling provisions and the same cannot be resorted to for the purpose of claiming relief based on the fact that the petitioners belong to a particular category. Reference in this regard may be made to Ajit Singh (2) vs. State of Punjab : (1999) 7 SCC 209.
The plea raised based on the provisions of Rule 16 (2) of the Rules essentially is based on misreading of the said provisions, inasmuch as the said provision only provides for relaxation from 'amongst those who have qualified for interview' and for qualifying for interview, the requirement of the minimum marks in terms of Rule 14 have to be followed, as there is no relaxation provided qua the said requirement. As such, there is no substance in the plea raised by the petitioners.
Besides the above, the fact that recruitment under challenge is long over and the candidates likely to be affected, in case the plea as raised by the petitioners was to be accepted, are not before this Court, the petition even otherwise cannot be continued any further.
In view of above discussion, the petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 20-DJ/-
(Downloaded on 03/02/2023 at 11:01:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)