Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santosh Kumari Kharadi vs Rpsc., Ajmer on 6 September, 2016
Author: Jaishree Thakur
Bench: Jaishree Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
***
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.7905 of 2016
PETITIONER:
Santosh Kumari Kharadi D/o Shri Nathu Lal Kharadi, aged
about 24 years, R/o Ninama, 3, Kharkoti, Pipalkhunt,
Khatori, Pratapgarh
Versus
RESPONDENT:
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through
its Secretary.
***
DATE OF ORDER 06.09.2016
HON'BLE MS JAISHREE THAKUR, J
Mr.B.S.Tanwar for the petitioner.
Mr.J.P.Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr.Khet Singh for respondent RPSC.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction that respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'RPSC') should be directed to call three times the number of candidates in the interview for the posts advertised. It is contended that in case, three times the number of candidates are called for 2 interview for selection to Rajasthan Subordinate Services, the petitioner would have a chance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this court by an interim order dated 10.08.2016 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8605/2016 Pola Ram V/s State of Rajasthan & Anr. had permitted Ex-serviceman to be provisionally interviewed by the RPSC. The counsel for the petitioner submits that parity should be maintained. Mr.J.P.Joshi, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Khet Singh appearing on behalf of respondent RPSC argues that the petitioner cannot claim parity with that of Pola Ram and other Ex-servicemen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had permitted one Babu Ram and others (Ex-serviceman) to be interviewed (which would be subject to the final disposal of the writ petition) and it was on that count ex-serviceman had been permitted to appear for interview. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that a conscious decision has been taken by the RPSC in its meeting held on 14.06.2016 to only invite persons numbering two times the number of vacancies for interview and this was based upon the decision that was taken by the 3 UPSC while conducting Civil Services Examinations. The rationale behind calling candidates in the ratio of two times the number of vacancies is based on giving the RPSC adequate time to interview each candidate for assessing his or her ability. Furthermore, the counsel for the respondents argues that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav V/s State of Haryana reported in 1985 (4) SCC 417 also took note of the fact that the nubmer of candidates to be called for interview in order of marks obtained in the written examination should not exceed twice or at the highest thrice the number of vacancies to be filled so that viva voce test can be carried in a fair and scientific manner. It is argued that in the instant case, almost 20028 candidates have been called for interview by applying the ratio of two times and thus, increasing the ratio would not allow the RPSC to do justice in the interview.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
Admittedly, in Pola Ram's case, permission was provisionally granted to the Ex-serviceman to appear for 4 the counseling, result whereof was to be kept in a sealed cover. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has brought on record, the decision of the RPSC to limit the number of candidates to be called in the interview to two times the number of vacancies, which decision has been taken on the basis of practice and procedure as followed by the UPSC. It is also noted that there is no challenge to the said decision by the petitioner.
It is a well settled principle that courts should not interfere in a policy decision taken until and unless, there is no rationale or the same is based on extraneous consideration. The court can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or malafide. In the instant case, the rationale of inviting two times the number of candidates for interview does not suffer from any infirmity. 20028 candidates have to be interviewed and a reasonable time has to be spent on each candidate. The candidates have already faced a process of selection by appearing in a written examination and meritorious candidates have been called for interview. The petitioner without challenging the decision of the RPSC would have no 5 locus as no basic right has been infringed.
In view of above, no interference is called for in the instant petition for writ. Consequently, the same is dismissed.
[JAISHREE THAKUR],J.
Anil Singh