Uttarakhand High Court
Scc 785-Rajesh Kumar Daria vs Rajasthan on 20 September, 2012
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
WPSS No.814 of 2012 Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
Shri Sandeep Tiwari and Ajit Ramola, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Shri B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission issued advertisement for Combined Lower Subordinate Examination - 2010. Petitioners applied and appeared in the preliminary examination. Result of preliminary examination was declared on 15.04.2012, but petitioners did not qualify. Against the said result, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners raised three objections. First, the result- dated 15.04.2012 is not in accordance with the Reservation Policy of the State Government dated 18.07.2001; secondly, the respondents have illegally qualified candidates in the ratio 1:15 and thirdly, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission alone is empowered to frame the rules and not the Secretary and since Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Preparation of Examination Procedure Rule, 2012 (for short 2012 Rules) have not been adopted by the Public Service Commission, these rules are not valid rules.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that various candidates secured more marks than the last selected candidate in General Category and thus, those candidates should have been declared qualified under the General Category and thereafter, the Commission should have selected the Reserved Category candidates under their category. By not doing so, the respondents have acted in violation of their own Government Order. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (8) SCC 785-Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where a vertical reservation is made in favour of Backward Class under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class.
In reply to this submission, Shri B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the persons belonging to Reserved Category, who have secured more marks than the last selected General Category candidate, have been counted under the General Category and thereafter, selection has been made under the Reserved Category. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also referred to the result- dated 15.04.2012, in which persons belonging to Reserved Category have been selected under the General Category.
Thus, prima facie, I find that result declared by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is not in violation of Government Order.
In support of his another submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the time of issuance of advertisement-dated 09.07.2011, clause 5.2.1.1 of Chapter V of Manual of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission was in operation, which provided that the candidates to be admitted to main written examination, is restricted to 20 times the vacancies to be filled and thus, Commission is obliged to call candidates in the ratio of 1:20 against the existing vacancies. He submitted that 2012 Rules, under which the result dated 15.04.2012 is prepared, is not applicable in present case, as 2012 Rules will not apply to the vacancies advertised prior to creation of 2012 Rules.
Shri B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission submitted that candidates were called for main examination in the ratio of 1:15 against the existing vacancies. This was done as per Rule 8 Ka of the 2012 Rules. He also drew my attention to Rule 11 of the 2012 Rules, which superseded all the previous rules and regulations prevailing regarding preparation of examination result. He argued that in view of Rule 11 of the 2012 Rules, clause 5.2.1.1 of Chapter V of Manual of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission will not be applicable in the present case. I am satisfied with the submission of Shri B.D. Kandpal, Advocate.
Third argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners also has no force, as in office memorandum dated 14.03.2012, it is clearly mentioned that the 2012 Rules have been approved by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, I am of the view that Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has not committed any illegality in the preparation of result. The Stay application (CLMA NO.6240 of 2012) is rejected.
List this matter in the week commencing 08.10.2012 under the heading admission/final disposal.
(V.K. Bist, J.)
Arpan 20.09.2012