Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bench At Jaipur vs The State Of Punjab 1997 (5) Slr133 on 20 April, 2015
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13930/2014 Preeti Singh v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, & another Date of order 20.4.2015 Honble Mr. Justice Ajit Singh Honble Mr. Justice Prakash Gupta Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Ankit Sethi & Mr. SS Shekhawat, for the petitioner.
Mr. A. K. Sharma, Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. V. K. Sharma, for respondent no.1 Mr. Arvind Chawla with Mr. Prateek Mathur, for respondent no.2 Reportable The following order of the Court was passed by Ajit Singh, J.
By this petition, the petitioner has essentially prayed that result of respondent no.2 regarding her appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) be declared illegal and instead she be directed to be appointed from the date other candidates have been appointed and be also placed over and above respondent no.2 in the merit list.
2. The facts in brief are these. On 25.11.2013 the Recruiting Authority published an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 187 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Out of these posts, 29 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates which included 9 posts for women. The petitioner as well as respondent no.2 submitted their applications as women candidates in the category of Scheduled Caste. Both appeared in the preliminary examination and on being declared successful therein appeared in the main written examination held on 14th and 15th June 2014.
3. It is not in dispute that respondent no.2 is elder in age than petitioner. It is also not in dispute that aggregate marks obtained by the petitioner in main examination were 115 whereas respondent no.2 obtained 123.5 and these marks were more than the required 30% minimum aggregate marks for candidates of Scheduled Caste to be eligible for interview. In the advertisement there was no mention about the criteria to be adopted for rounding off the marks. The advertisement also did not say that in the event of candidates securing equal marks in aggregate, their general suitability for service shall be adjudged on the basis of their date of birth and the eldest candidate amongst them shall be recommended for appointment.
4. After the main written examinations were held, the Examination Committee on 26.6.2014 in its meeting passed a resolution regarding rounding off the awarded marks. It resolved that in case the aggregate marks came in fraction, it shall be omitted if fraction was less than half and in case fraction was half or above the same shall be rounded off to next higher figure.
5. Having regard to this resolution, since the aggregate marks obtained by respondent no.2 was 123.5, they were rounded off and treated as 124. As petitioner and respondent no.2 (even without rounding off her marks) had secured more than minimum 35% aggregate marks, both were called for interview on 15.11.2014. In the interview, the petitioner secured 25 marks whereas respondent no.2 secured 16 marks. In the result, on counting the marks of four subjects and interview, both obtained equal 140 aggregate marks. And had the marks of respondent no.2 not been rounded off, her aggregate marks would have been less than the marks of petitioner.
6. The Examination Committee, while preparing final result, took another decision to the effect that if two or more candidates obtained equal marks in aggregate, their general suitability for service shall be adjudged by preparing their inter se merit on the basis of their date of birth, and eldest candidate amongst them shall be recommended for appointment. The Recruiting Authority, therefore, in consonance with this resolution, recommended the name of respondent no.2 because she was elder in age to petitioner. It is in this background the petitioner has filed the present petition for reliefs mentioned above.
7. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the criteria adopted in preparing the merit by rounding off aggregate marks of main examination which resulted in respondent no.2 getting equal marks is wholly illegal. According to the petitioner, since the Rules do not provide for rounding off, the criteria amounted to tinkering with competitive examination, which is not permissible. It has also been argued that respondent no.1 committed an illegality in placing respondent no.2 above the petitioner merely because she was elder in age. According to the petitioner, under the Rules, in the event of two or more candidates obtaining equal marks Recruiting Authority is required to arrange them in the order of merit on the basis of general suitability for service to the Appointing Authority, and not on the basis of age. In support of the submissions made, the petitioner has strongly relied upon the Full Bench decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kuldip Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 1997 (5) SLR133, decision of Supreme Court in Orissa Public Service Commission Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary (2011) 8 SCC 10 and decision of Jaipur Bench of this High Court in Santosh Kumar Poonia Vs. R.P.S.C. 1999 (1) RLR 1.
8. In reply, respondent no.1 has defended the criteria of rounding off marks as well as placing of respondent no.2 above the petitioner on the basis of she being elder in age. According to respondent no.1, both the norms were based on sound logic and common sense. Respondent no.1 has placed reliance on the decision of this High Court, Jaipur Bench in Anand Kumar Parashar Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7836/2006 decided on 19.2.2007. Respondent no.2, has supported and adopted submissions made by respondent no.1.
9. The process of recruitment to the posts in the Rajasthan Judicial Service is regulated by the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (in short the Rules). These Rules are statutory and have been made by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred by Articles 233 and 234 read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Recruitment for the post in service to the cadre to Civil Judge is made only by direct recruitment on the basis of a competitive examination conducted by the Recruiting Authority.
10. Rule 20 of the Rules essentially deals with the scheme of examination and syllabus. It mandates that the competitive examination shall be held in two stages i.e. preliminary examination and main examination as per the scheme specified in Schedule IV and that the marks obtained in the preliminary examination by the candidates declared qualified for admission to the main examination will not be counted for determining their final merit.
11. Clause A of Schedule-IV appended to the Rules states that the examination scheme for recruitment shall consist of an objective type preliminary examination, the written main examination and interview to test the general knowledge of the candidate and his fitness (suitability) for the post and as per Clause C the main examination shall consist of four subjects viz; Law Paper-I, Law Paper-II, Language (i) Paper-I Hindi Essay (ii) Paper-II English Essay and Interview. Regarding the eligibility for interview of the candidates, it is provided that after the marks obtained by the candidates in written test have been received, the Recruiting Authority shall call for interview only those who have obtained a minimum of 35% marks in each of Law Papers and 40% in the aggregate. However, candidates belonging to SC/ST category shall be deemed to be eligible for interview if they obtained minimum of 30% marks in each of Law Papers and 35% marks in aggregate.
12. Rule 24 of the Rules mandates for the preparation of list of candidates to be recommended by the Recruiting Authority in the order of their preference on the basis of their aggregate marks and in the event of two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the Recruiting Authority is required to arrange them in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the service and recommend their names to the Appointing Authority for appointment. This rule also provides that the Recruiting Authority shall not recommend a candidate of SC/ST category unless he obtains minimum 35% marks in the aggregate of written examination and the interview and in the case of other candidates, unless he obtains minimum 40% marks in the aggregate of written examination and the interview. The rule further provides that no candidate shall be recommended who fails to obtain minimum 25% marks in the interview.
13. In Kuldip Singh Vs. The State of Punjab (supra), Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that rounding off fraction of marks obtained in the written competitive examination for bringing a candidate into the field of choice for selection to the post is unacceptable under law unless the Rules governing the selection specifically provide in this regard. The Full Bench has further held that the benefit of rounding off marks should not be granted in competitive examination when academically qualified persons are competing for competitive posts, as in the present world of high competition even 0.1 percentage of marks counts a lot.
14. The Supreme Court in Orissa Public Service Commission Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary (supra), while examining similar provisions in Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007, has held that such rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to the rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation. In that case, no provision was made for rounding off the marks in the rules, and yet the marks of candidates were rounded off so as to bring them up to the minimum requirement for interview. The Orissa High Court upheld the criteria of rounding off marks, but in appeal the Supreme Court reversed the decision with a clear finding that in the absence of any provision in the Rules for rounding off marks, it was not permissible. In the present case also the Rules nowhere provide for rounding off, or giving of grace marks to any candidate at any stage of the examination. Even in the advertisement there was no mention that the criteria of rounding off marks would be adopted at any stage. As stated above, the Rules completely govern the field of recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). And these rules being statutory, having no provision for rounding off marks in the examination, respondent no.1 in our considered view committed a serious illegality in rounding off the marks obtained by respondent no.2 in the main written examination. The resolution of the Examination Committee permitting rounding off marks, is also contrary to the spirit of the decision of Supreme Court in Orissa Public Service Commission Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary (supra). Also respondent no.1 could not have suddenly changed the rules of examination by passing a resolution after the process of competitive examination had started. The entire exercise of rounding off the marks by respondent no.1 amounts to tinkering with competitive examination. And this is wholly illegal. We, therefore, quash the decision of respondent no.1 treating 123.5 marks obtained by respondent no.2 in the main written examination as 124.
15. We are also in complete disagreement with respondent no.1 for recommending the name of respondent no.2 by adjudging her suitability favourably merely because she happened to be elder in age than petitioner. We say so because the rules do not envisage for adopting such a criteria of recommendation in the event of two candidates obtaining equal marks. Rule 24 of the Rules specifically deals with such a situation. This rule provides that if two or more candidates had obtained equal marks in the aggregate, the recruiting authority while preparing a list shall arrange them in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability of service and recommend their names to the appointing authority for appointment to the cadre of Civil Judge.
16. The question, therefore, is what is the real test to adjudge general suitability of candidates obtaining equal marks while arranging their names in the order of merit. As already stated above, Clause A of Schedule IV provides that examination scheme for recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge shall consist of an objective type preliminary examination, a written main examination and interview to test general knowledge of the candidate and his fitness (suitability) for appointment. The use of expression to test general knowledge of the candidate and his fitness (suitability) after the word interview demonstrates the intention that fitness (suitability) of a candidate is to be adjudged on the basis of marks obtained in interview.
17. Our this view also finds support from a clause in the same schedule which deals with interview. This clause unmistakenly says that in interviewing a candidate, the suitability for employment to the service has to be tested with reference to his record at the school, college and university and his character, personality, address and physique. As regards question which may be put to a candidate, the clause says that they may be of general nature and not necessarily academic or legal. The clause further says that candidate must be put questions to test his general knowledge, including the knowledge of current affairs of the present day problems. Not only this, the clause mandates that marks must also be awarded for the candidates proficiency in the Rajasthani dialects and his knowledge of social customs of Rajasthan. The test of general suitability of a candidate vis--vis the candidate who has secured equal marks in the aggregate, therefore, depends only on the marks obtained by him in the interview and not on the basis of age. It is also to be noted that the clause says that legal and academic questions may not be put to a candidate in the interview. This is because it is expected from a candidate, who has better general knowledge, well-versed with current affairs, present day problems and proficiency in the Rajasthani dialects and good knowledge of social customs of Rajasthan, will be more suitable than other candidate in discharging his/her duties as Civil Judge. Earlier also, in Santosh Kumar Poonia Vs. R.P.S.C. (supra) a learned Single Judge of this High Court had interpreted similarly worded rule, as we have done above, and we fully approve the view taken by him. The resolution of the Examination Committee for adjudging general suitability on the basis of age is apparently not in conformity with the rules. The petitioner had admittedly secured much more marks than respondent no.2 in the interview. Respondent no.1, therefore, ought to have placed the name of petitioner above the name of respondent no.2 in the merit list.
18. In the case of Anand Kumar Parashar v. State of Rajasthan (supra) relied upon by respondent no.1 there were no statutory rules to deal with a situation when candidates obtained equal marks in the selection process for appointment to the posts of primary teachers. The recruiting authority, therefore, thought it proper to adopt a rational criteria of recommending the name of candidate who was older in age. But this is not the situation in the present case. The decision, therefore, does not help the respondents.
19. For these reasons, as no appointments have been made till this date, we quash the recommendation of respondent no.2 by respondent no.1 for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Instead, we direct respondent no.1 to place the name of petitioner above respondent no.2 in the order of merit and recommend her name for appointment on that post.
20. The petition is allowed but no order as to costs.
(Prakash Gupta) J. (Ajit Singh) J.
db
1
[All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.] Deepankar Bhattacharya PS