Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mansi Tiwari vs State Of Raj And Anr on 26 August, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5658 / 2017
Mansi Tiwari D/o Shri Vinay Tiwari, Aged About 22 Years, D 6/414,
Chitrakoot Scheme, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4094 / 2017
1. Nidhi Raj Sharma D/o Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, Dadhich Nagar, Losal, Sikar
2. Nidhi Sharma D/o Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, Shyam Nagar, Karauli
3. Akanksha Kumari D/o Shri Banshi Dhar Chaudhary, Aged About 24 Years, Near Budhania Crossing, Devdhara Colony, Jaipur- 302023
4. Mamta Sharma D/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, Village Dogri Post Mozamabad, Tehsil Dudhu, Jaipur- 303009
5. Roobi Kumari D/o Shri Indrapal Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Hingoli, Mehrawar, Kumbher, Bharatpur-321201
6. Anjula Asdeo D/o Shri Shree Krishna Adeo, Aged About 31 Years, Nayapura, Lal Sagar, Jodhpur
7. Sumitra Chaudhary D/o Shri Tulashi Rami, Aged About 27 Years, Near Railway Crossing, Degana Junction, Nagaur-341503
8. Divya Tiwari D/o Shri Mohan Swaroop Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, Near Old Nagar Palika, Gandhi Chowk, Bayana, Bharatpur
9. Bhawani Singh S/o Shri Nakhat Singh Bhati, Aged About 25 Years, Village Gordia, Post Harsani, Tehsil Gadra Road, District Barmer - 344011
10. Ashish Yadav D/o Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, 17, Jawahar Nagar, Alwar (2 of 8) [ CW-5658/2017]
11. Kumari Pooja D/o Shri Randhir Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Near R.K. School, Shyam Nagar, Bharatpur
12. Shipra Sharma D/o Shri Govind Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, B-59, Shyam Colony, Opposite Ram Mandir, Tonk Road, Jaipur
13. Yogesh Kumari D/o Shri Gangasharan, Aged About 29 Years, Gali No. 8, Prem Nagar, Delhi-110008
14. Rajni Sharma D/o Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, 5/1730, Paradise Colony, Bharatpur
15. Deepika Shekhawat D/o Shri Parwat Singh, Aged About 32 Years, RIICO Industrial Area, Quarter No. 1, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
16. Preeti Jain D/o Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Jain, Aged About 26 Years, Govind Nagar West, Amber Road, Jaipur.
17. Anki Prakash D/o Shri Om Omprakash Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Presently Residing At Surya Nagar, Jaipur.
18. Neha Mishra D/o Shri Kesari Prakash Mishra, Aged About 26 Years, 21, Sundar Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur-302012.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. MF Baig, Adv. for RPSC _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order 26/08/2017
1. Both the writ petitions raise a common question relating to the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined (3 of 8) [ CW-5658/2017] Competitive Examination, 2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Rajasthan Special Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointment and Posts in Services under the State) Act, 2015, so far as it provided 5% reservation for Special Back Classes is concerned, was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1645/2016, decided on 09/12/2016. The said judgment was challenged by the State of Rajasthan in Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1464-1466 of 2017 wherein the Apex Court passed status-quo order. However, after hearing, later on passed following order on 09/05/2017:-
"9. Having regard to the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order:-
(i) All the posts originally advertised shall be filled up strictly in accordance with law i.e. without applying the provisions of THE ACT.
(ii) The State is at liberty to appoint the above-
mentioned 1252 candidates belonging to the "special backward classes" to the various posts on a temporary basis by creating supernumerary posts in different categories, if so advised. However, any appointment so made shall not confer any right on such candidates for any appointment on permanent basis in the eventuality of the instant appeals being dismissed.
(iii) The State must incorporate appropriate provision in the appointment orders to be issued to indicate the temporary nature of the appointment as indicated in paragraph (ii).
(iv) The State shall proceed to make appointments of the originally advertised posts in accordance with law without waiting for the disposal of the instant appeals.
(v) We also direct that the Annexure R-2 referred to above shall be appended to this order."
2.1 The order passed by the Supreme Curt is taken on record.
(4 of 8) [ CW-5658/2017]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in spite of order passed by the Apex Court on 09/05/2017 (supra), Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) has proceeded to conduct selection on the basis of original advertisement dated 28/04/2016 wherein 5% posts were separately earmarked for Special Backward Classes for which the selection has already been quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC admits the factual aspect but submits that the same was done because the preliminary examination result was already declared before passing of order by the Supreme Court. It is submitted that re- bifurcation of the posts has been done thereafter but the result of the preliminary examination was not revised in view of the fact that the same had already been declared prior to the judgment passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court. It is submitted that the candidates from General Category, who filed petition before this Court, were allowed by interim order to participate in the main examination. It is stated that revised bifurcation of posts was published by the RPSC by issuing a corrigendum on 22/06/2017. Learned counsel, admits that before the corrigendum they had conducted the written examination and interviews were commenced.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners opposes this factual aspects and submits that two of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions have not been allowed to participate. It is also pointed out that apart from the petitioners, there are several other (5 of 8) [ CW-5658/2017] candidates who were within the same marks as the last candidate, who was called for main examination but were not allowed to participate by the RPSC as the RPSC did not revise the result. At the same time, in-stead of 21% reservation earmarked for OBC, which has been upheld by this Court, 26% reserved candidates, which include 21% OBC and 5% SBC, were allowed to participate by calling fifteen times the number of posts reserved for them. This is apart from 28% reservation for SC & ST candidates. Thus, much larger chunk of candidates from the reserved category participated in the main examination making the entire examination faulty and now the RPSC has proceeded further by undergoing another mistake by conducting interviews on the basis of the result declared category wise of the main examination.
6. Learned counsels further submit that although in the main examination, the result has been categorized without including SBC, still, due to the fault committed at the stage of preliminary examination, the entire examination has been vitiated in law and the candidates, who would have been otherwise included for participating in the main examination, have been deprived resulting in taking away their valuable right to participate and consideration for selection. It is also pointed out that at the same time, those candidates, who would not have been entitled to participate in the main examination, have been included.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels, this Court finds that the order passed by the Apex Court was clear and there was no ambiguity therein. After the order dated (6 of 8) [ CW-5658/2017] 09/05/2017, the RPSC was required to fill all the posts originally advertised strictly in accordance with law without applying the provisions of the Act. Thus, separate bifurcation for SBC could not have been done thereafter. In view of the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules 1999 and the procedure laid down therein for conducting examination, which is subject matter in the present petitions, 15 times candidates from each category were required to be called for participate in the main examination. Thus, the result of the preliminary examination was required to be revised because earlier, while declaring category wise result, 5% quota was separately categorized and thus, 15 times, 5% of the candidates from SBC quota were separately included which resulted in increasing the overall reservation to more than 50%. This Court finds that without revising the result in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court, the RPSC proceeded to conduct the main examination by allowing all the said candidates from each category including separate category of SBC quota. 7.1 Prima-facie, this Court finds that the Chairman and Members of the RPSC have committed contempt of this Courts' orders as well as the orders of the Supreme Court and have flouted by proceeding further on the basis of preliminary examination result which included the reservation as provided under the Act which stands declared as ultra-vires to the Constitution. Admittedly, the re-bifurcation of the number of posts has been done subsequently. Thus, after re-bifurcation, the result of the preliminary (7 of 8) [ CW-5658/2017] examination was required to be revised.
7.2 This Court also finds that only those candidates, who had cleared the preliminary examination and are in merit according to their category wise quota, could be allowed to participate in the main examination and therefore, the candidates, who were not within the merit, have been allowed to participate by increasing the quota for reservation while at the same time, the candidates from general category, who would have otherwise been allowed to participate in the main examination, were deprived. It is informed that the result of the main examination was declared and on the basis thereof, the interviews are also being conducted whereafter result shall be declared category wise. Thus, the entire examination being conducted now would result in candidates being selected ultimately who may not have been eligible even to participate in the main examination and would thus vitiate the entire process.
8. On a specific query asked from the learned counsel, whether there was any meeting conducted by the RPSC after the decision of the Apex Court and whether they took any steps for revising the preliminary examination result, learned counsel is unable to state anything in positive and has avoided the query which prima- faciely shows that in-spite of having knowledge of the judgment passed by the Apex Court and having a responsibility for conducting the examinations in terms of Article 320 of the Constitution and in terms of the Rules of 1999 and the amended Rules of 2014, the action of the RPSC is vitiated and there is no (8 of 8) [ CW-5658/2017] other option left for this Court but to set aside the on going selection process and direct the RPSC to re-start the process again by declaring the result afresh at the preliminary examination level so that 15 times candidates from each category are called for appearing in the main examination strictly in terms of the corrigendum issued by the RPSC dated 22/06/2017 without any discrimination and as per the existing position of reservation prior to coming into force the Act which has already been declared ultra-vires.
9. This Court also holds the concerned authorities of the respondent-RPSC in contempt of the orders passed by the Division Bench as well as the Supreme Court in view of the directions of the Supreme Court to fill up the posts originally advertised strictly in accordance with law without applying the provisions of the Act. 10 The Registry of this Court is directed to initiate suo-moto contempt proceedings against the Chairman, Members and Secretary of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. The contempt after having registered be placed before the appropriate Bench holding concerned roster.
11. Both the writ petitions are disposed of at this stage.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J. Raghu/49-50