Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
(Mohan Lal Kumawat vs . State Of Rajasthan & Anr.) on 16 July, 2015
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1192/2015 (Mohan Lal Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2164/2015 (Sharad Tripathi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : July 16th, 2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. H.R. Kumawat ] Mr. S.D. Khaspuria ], for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for the respondent-RPSC. BY THE COURT
The common legal issue in the aforesaid petitions is the alleged arbitrariness of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter RPSC) in failing to call the petitioners for interview following the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2012 whereby recruitment to various posts in the State Services and several posts in the Subordinate Services was initiated in terms of the advertisement dated 06.02.2012.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1192/2015 titled Mohan Lal Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. is taken as the lead case.
Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter the Rules of 1999) provide for recruitment for the State and Subordinate Services of the State of Rajasthan. Under notification dated 06.02.2012 vacancies for recruitment to various posts were advertised. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 provides that candidates who succeed and obtain minimum marks in the written examination (main) as fixed by RPSC in its discretion would be called for an interview. RPSC in its discretion fixed the criteria of 35% marks in the written examination for ST/SC candidates as also candidates belonging to Ex-serviceman and for candidates applying as persons with disabilities (PWDs) under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter the Act of 1995) to be entitled to an interview call.
The petitioner suffering from 75% vision impairment belongs to the general physically handicapped category and wrote the examination, 2012 as such. Having obtained 415 marks i.e. less than 35% marks in the written examination he was not called for an interview. The cut-off for the category of candidates to which the petitioner belongs was 455 in the ST/SC and OBC (non-creamy layer) category and 457 in the General category. Aggrieved of not having been called for interview following the Competitive Examination 2012, this petition has been filed on various grounds.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the physically handicapped candidates ought to have been treated at par with SC/ST candidates which includes the physically disabled among them by lowering the minimum marks in the written examination to 30% as in their case. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anmol Bhandari (Minor) through His Father/Natural Guardian Vs. Delhi Technological University, W.P. (C) No.4853/2012, decided on 12.09.2012, it has been submitted that the Delhi High Court has held that the physically handicapped persons under the Act of 1995 are to be treated at par with the physically handicapped among SC/ST candidates for the reason that they suffer discrimination far more invidious than that suffered by ST/SC candidates and constitute a homogeneous class of physically handicapped despite the vertical divide. Counsel further submitted that despite number of vacancies reserved for persons with disability in the competitive examination, 2012, being 17 in State Services and 53 in Subordinate Services, only 17 physically handicapped persons have been called for interview resulting in a situation where vacancies in the various services in the quota of physically handicapped will go abegging. It has been submitted that even otherwise RPSC having prescribed 35% marks in written examination for physically handicapped persons to be called for an interview, in terms of Rule 40 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter the Rules of 2011), the petitioner as a physically handicapped candidate was entitled to a further 5% concession on the minimum qualifying marks determined by RPSC and thus ought to have been called for an interview having secured more than 30% marks in the written examination.
Reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of RPSC. It has been submitted that under the Rules of 1999, RPSC has the discretion to determine the minimum marks to entitle an interview call and the number of candidates for interview vis a vis the number of vacancies to be filled up in pursuance to any given examination. It has been submitted that under the scheme of the examination of 2012, RPSC has fixed minimum marks in the written examination at 40% for candidates belonging to General category and 35% for those in the SC/ST, Ex-serviceman and persons with disability category. Further RPSC in the exercise of its discretion for the last several years as a practice has called only twice the number of candidates as against the number of vacancies available in respect of a particular recruitment. It has been submitted that even if persons suffering with physical disability, are in terms of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anmol Bhandari (Supra), entitled to be treated at par with the physically handicapped candidates in the ST/SC category as they constitute one homogeneous class amongst themselves, the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is of no avail to the petitioner for more than one reason (i) the judgment of the Delhi High Court was rendered subsequent to the cut off date for submissions of applications for the examination 2012 and (ii) it was not binding on RPSC's (iii) no rule or circular governing the 2012 examination so provided (iv) the judgment of Delhi High Court referred above will be applied beginning the next examination as resolved by the full commission. It has been submitted in the alternative that in any event in view of the fact that no person with physical disability in the ST/SC category with less than 35% marks in the written examination has been called for the interview, the argument of the petitioner's counsel is a non-sequitor and unsustainable as a case of discrimination can only sustain on a factual foundation. In the circumstances, it has been submitted that though it is indeed true that RPSC had the option of lowering the minimum marks in written examination for ST/SC candidate to 30% in the event of adequate number of ST/SC candidates with 35% marks in written examination not being available, this situation however did not arise. It has been further submitted that no case with reference to Rule 40 of the Rules of 2011 can also be made out inasmuch as against the 40% minimum marks for general category candidates qualifying for interview pursuant to the written examination, 2012, physically handicapped persons have required to obtain only 35% marks in the written examination for eligibility. The 5% concession in the qualifying marks by resort to Rule 40 of the Rules of 2011 thus stands more than satisfied and the petitioner cannot claim additional/double concession on the basis of Rule 40 of the Rules of 2011. It has been submitted that in any event, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the reservation in the course of selection process is misdirected inasmuch as reservation to notified category of candidates is to be provided only at the stage of selection and not during the process of selection.
Heard. Considered.
It is not in dispute that RPSC has under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 discretion to determine the minimum marks required to be obtained by candidates in written examination for the purpose of being called for an interview lies with RPSC. RPSC has so exercised it providing for 35% marks in the written examination inter alia for PWDs for being called for interview. It is also on record and is not disputed that it has been the consistent practice of RPSC that candidates twice number of vacancies advertised are to be called for interviews on the basis of their comparitive performance in the written examination. This has been done with RPSC determining 40% marks in written examination for general category and 35% marks as the minimum in the said examination for ST/SC, Ex-serviceman and physically disabled candidates to be eligible for the interview. It is not in dispute that twice number of candidates with reference to vacancies advertised have been called for interview. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not obtained 35% marks in the written examination. On all counts the petitioner was not entitled to a call for an interview.
I find no force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that RPSC is obliged to lower the criteria for physically handicapped persons being called for interview from 35% marks in the written examination to 30% marks for the reason that such benefit has been provided to physically handicapped ST/SC candidates and for the reason of the right of the petitioner as a person with disabilities to be equated for grant of concession with ST/SC candidates suffering disability. The argument is in a vacuum and without factual foundation as Mr. S.N. Kumawat, appearing for RPSC has categorically stated that the criterion of 35% marks in the written examination for open market SC/ST candidate with disability as such has not been diluted from 35% to 30% marks in the written examination. Further there is substance in the argument of Mr. Kumawat that candidates with physical disability having been required to only obtain 35% minimum marks in the written examination as against 40% minimum marks for general category candidates entails more than compliance with Rule 40 of the Rules of 2011 which provides for concession of 5% to physically handicapped persons in respect of a qualifying exam for the purpose of evaluating their eligibility.
The upshot of the submissions made and discussion is that no case of arbitrariness or discrimination against the petitioner can be made out. The selection process for the posts advertised on 06.02.2012 under the Rules of 1999 is wholly in accordance with law. No illegality attaches thereto.
The petitions are therefore without force.
Dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A