Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prem Singh Rathore S/O Shri Govind Singh ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 December, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7737/2020
1. Prem Singh Rathore S/o Shri Govind Singh Rathore, Aged
About 36 Years, R/o 47, Kailash Puri, Near Narendra
Bhawan, Bikaner - Rajasthan.
2. Natwar Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Kishore Singh
Shekhawat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo - Rundal, Via-
Morija, Distt. - Jaipur-303805, Rajasthan
3. Rajenda Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bhagwati Prasad
Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o C-15, Netaji Subhash
Nagar-Ii, Hari Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan
4. Nitesh Mathur S/o Shri Mohan Kumar Mathur, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Plot No. 43, Prem Nagar-I, Gurjar Ki Thadi,
Jaipur-302019
5. Bajrang Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Sultan Shekhawat,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o 43, Tara Nagar, Yadav Colony,
Civil Lines, Jaipur-302006
6. Ashok Kumar Saini S/o Shri Chimman Lal Saini, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Naya Bass, Ward No. 22, Bandikui,
Dausa, Rajasthan
7. Kapil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Govind Narayan Sharma,
Aged About 35 Years, R/o 2804, Near Ganesh Mandir,
Moti Dungri Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan
8. Krishan Mohan Pancholi, S/o Shri Gopal Lal Sharma,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o A-200, Baiji Ko Kothi, Jhalana
Dungri, Jaipur, Rajasthan
9. Dinesh Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Krishan Vyas, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Outside Usta Bari, Near Floor Meal, Bikaner
(Raj.)
10. Roop Singh Parihar S/o Shri Jai Singh Parihar, Aged About
38 Years, R/o E-89, Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner (Raj.)
11. Sunil Vyas S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Vyas, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Near Vivek Bal Niketan School, Murlidhar
Vyas, Murlidhar Vyas Nagar Road, Bikaer, Rajasthan
12. Lalit Kumar Chhangani S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Chhangani,
Aged About 42 Years, R/o Barah Gwar Ka Chowk,
Bikaner, Rajasthan
13. Kuldeep Singh S/o Sh. Jasbir Singh, Aged About 42
Years, R/o- Plot No. 137, Ajeet Colony, Behind Police
Line, Ratanada, Jodhpur-342001
14. Vikas S/o Sh. Rajendra Parsad, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o- Ward No.8, Vpo- Sahuwala, Teh- Bhadra, Dist-
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan
15. Dharamveer S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o- Vpo Dholipal, Distt- Hanumangarh, Rajasthan
16. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Ratan Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/
(Downloaded on 18/12/2020 at 09:35:55 PM)
(2 of 8) [CW-7737/2020]
o- Ward No. 29, New Colony, Shivpura Bas, Teh- Bhadra,
Distt- Hanumangarh, Rajasthan
17. Vishveshwar Yadav S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal Yadav, Aged
About 36 Years, R/o- 235, Ward No. 21, Sumer Nagar,
Housing Board Colony, Madangang, Kishangarh, Ajmer
18. Pradeep Kumar Vashishtha S/o Sh. Kashi Prasad
Vashishtha, Aged About 41 Years, R/o- 52-53, Kashi
Niwas, Kesar Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017
19. Manoj Kumar Bindal S/o- Sh. Kedar Nath Bindal, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o- Gayatri Jewellers, Shiv Ganj Mandi,
Station Road, Bayana, Distt- Bharatpur-321401
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel And Training, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Chairman,
Jaipur Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305001
3. Commercial Tax Department, Rajasthan, Through
Commissioner, Kar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road,
Ambedkar Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7553/2020 Anurag Berwal S/o Nand Lal Berwal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 17, Near Police Station, Nagar Palika, Mukundgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Department And Food And Civil Supplies, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7570/2020 (Downloaded on 18/12/2020 at 09:35:55 PM) (3 of 8) [CW-7737/2020] Amit Sharma S/o Purushottam Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 2072, Khazane Walon Ka Rasta, C.p. Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Commissioner (Administration), Department Of Commercial Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7643/2020
1. Kundan Mundel S/o Ramniwas Mundel, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 42, Vakeelo Ka Hatha, Behind Rto Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Navin Kumar Vyas S/o Nand Kishor Vyas, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Old Bhrampuri, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Samdari, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nehru Sehkar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, 22 Godam Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7718/2020
1. Umakant Vyas S/o Sh. Kishori Ballabh Vyas, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ii-D-289, Murlidhar Vyas Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan
2. Vijay Pal Singh Khichi S/o Sh. Dev Pal Singh Khichi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Rampura Basti Lalgarh, Bikaner, Rajasthan (Downloaded on 18/12/2020 at 09:35:55 PM) (4 of 8) [CW-7737/2020]
3. Rohit Kumawat S/o Sh. Bajrang Lal Kumawat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ramkaran Plaza Baemundo Ki Gali, Ward No. 19., Shrimadhupur(Sikar), Rajasthan
4. Vimlesh Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Prahalad Mali, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo- Tholai, Tehsil- Jamwaramgarh, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan
5. Dinesh Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Bhagwan Shay Yadav, R/o Vpo- Astikalan, Tehsil- Chomu, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan
6. Amit Saxena S/o Sh. Diwakar Saxena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Near To R.s.e.b, Rajbagh Road City, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan
7. Anirudha Joshi S/o Sh. Janardan Joshi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 40, Subhash Nagar Pal Road, Near Bsnl Office Opposite Cbi Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretory, Department Of Personnel And Training, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Chairman, Jaipur Road, Ghoogara Ghati, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305001
3. Rajasthan Cooperative Societies, Through Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nehru Sehkar Bhavan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur 302005
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9031/2020
1. Manphool S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Post Chandpura Via Bajaj Gram Sanwali District Sikar, Rajasthan.
2. Ankur Dangi S/o Shri Vardi Chand Dangi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kheda Mata Chowk, Bedla Mataji Road, Village Bedla, Tehsil Badgawan, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 18/12/2020 at 09:35:55 PM)(5 of 8) [CW-7737/2020] 3. The Additional Commissioner (Administration),
Department Of Excise, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10791/2020 Balram Yadav S/o Ram Sharan Yadav, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Shri Krishna Hostel, Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Mr. Ankit Sethi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig Mr. Akshat Deewan for Mr. Punit Singhvi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 16/12/2020 This Court has passed the following order dated 04.12.2020 which reads as under:-
"The petitioners by way of these writ petitions submit that they have applied for the various posts under the advertisement dated 2.4.2018 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1999"). The petitioners are currently working as LDCs and UDCs in the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department and sought permission for participating in the selection process against the 12.5% ministerial quota available to them under Rule 6(A) of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1975").(Downloaded on 18/12/2020 at 09:35:55 PM)
(6 of 8) [CW-7737/2020] Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as per the Rules of 1999, a departmental candidate of a particular department is eligible for availing ministerial quota with respect to his/ her concerned department only where he or she has been employed as a ministerial employee but the RPSC is allowing candidates who are from other departments or those who are not from ministerial quota, to participate in the interview as against the quota reserved for Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services. Thus, ineligible candidates under the respective DC/ ministerial category have resulted in the escalation of cut off marks and the petitioners have been ousted from the recruitment process as per the result dated 9.7.2020 and interviews are being conducted of candidates who are otherwise ineligible.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have invited attention to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1999 to submit that the RPSC has to scrutinize applications of such candidates who have qualified written examination and are obliged to call only eligible candidates for Viva Voice.
However, the RPSC's counsel submits that the process of assessing the eligibility shall be done on the day the candidate appears for interview and if he is treated as ineligible than he is not allowed to participate in the interview.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that while they may not allow ineligible candidates to appear for interview those who are eligible have already been left out from participation as their names do not find in the final result where cut off have been placed at the higher level. Thus, the petitioners would have no chance to even participate in the interview and their entire quota will go wasted.
I have looked into the reply filed by the RPSC and the RPSC has not come out with any answer to this aspect. Learned counsel for the RPSC submits that RPSC is examining this aspect and he would be in a position to answer to this aspect on Wednesday i.e. 9.12.2020 and prays that matter be listed on Wednesday i.e. 9.12.2020.
Similarly, the counsels in the connecting writ petitions have also pointed out that similarly in other departments also where there is a specific quota reserved for departmental candidates there too ineligible candidates have been included in the final result and eligible candidates who are from Ministerial Staff have been left out resulting in their ousting from participation in the interview process.(Downloaded on 18/12/2020 at 09:35:55 PM)
(7 of 8) [CW-7737/2020] Learned counsel for the RPSC submits that an issue was raised at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Ranu Singh Versus The Rajasthan Public Service Commission:
SBCWP No.17809/2018 and the Court vide order dated 17.1.2019 found that there is no substance in the said writ petition and the same was dismissed.
I have considered the same.
Rule 11 (3) of the Rules of 1999 specifically mentions as under:-
"The RPSC shall scrutinize later on the applications of such candidates only as qualify in the written examination and shall also call eligible candidates through Viva Voice, if any."
At the stage when the writ petition of Ranu Singh (supra) came up before Principal Seat at Jodhpur and was decided by it, neither Viva Voice examination was in offing nor the final result was declared. The Court had no factual basis before it at that stage, thus, the said judgment will have no application to the present cases.
RPSC as per aforesaid Rule 11 of the Rules of 1999 is required to scrutinize the applications, examine eligibility of candidates and then call only eligible candidates for interview. However, it is seen that candidates are being called for interview directly without scrutinizing their applications for eligibility and then before conducting actual interview, their eligibility is being seen at that stage.
Thus, even if the candidates are ineligible, they are included for fixing cut off for interview and called for interview which has resulted in ousting others who are eligible but were not included in the main result on account of higher cut-off due to ineligible candidates being included.
Prima facie, such a process vitiates the entire selection process. If ineligible candidates names are included for calling them for interview and rejected just before actual interview, there is no turning back the clock and candidates who were otherwise eligible and ousted on account of inclusion of ineligible candidates would remain permanently ousted, at the same time less number of candidates will be available for interview. The Scheme of Rules of 1999 does not provide that candidates can be additionally called for interview nor an additional final result can be declared of the main examination.
In view thereof, while posting these cases for allowing the counsel for the RPSC to inform the Court about the decision being taken by the RPSC by Thursday i.e. 10.12.2020, in the meanwhile RPSC is restrained to conduct interviews from (Downloaded on 18/12/2020 at 09:35:55 PM) (8 of 8) [CW-7737/2020] 7.12.2020 onwards for RAS and Allied Examinations, till the next date.
List these cases again on 10.12.2020."
After passing of the aforesaid order the RPSC has filed the following affidavit as under:-
"I, M.P. Ramawat S/o Shri Bhika Ram, aged about 52 years, Asstt. Secy. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-
1. That I am Addl. Officer-in-charge in this case and as such competent to sign and verify all the pleadings related to this case on behalf of the respondent/commission.
2. That vide result dated 09.07.2020 of RAS (Main) examination, 2018, candidates were declared provisionally qualified for the personality and viva-voce test. That subsequently after verification 78 candidates has been qusted from the DC category and 19 from the ex-servicemen category. That vide press note dated 10.12.2020 proof of DC has been invited from the remaining candidates till 15.12.2020 who have yet not submitted their proof of DC category candidates and similarly from the candidates belongs to the ex-
servicemen category, those roll numbers are mentioned in the press note dated 10.12.2020. That respondent No.2 after this exercise, is of the thoughtful consideration to revise the result of RAS (main) examination, 2018."
Keeping in view the aforesaid, these writ petitions are disposed of in light of the decision taken by the RPSC to revise the result of RAS (main) examination, 2018.
In terms of the aforesaid affidavit, no further orders are required to be passed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Arun/192-198 (Downloaded on 18/12/2020 at 09:35:55 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)