Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rohit Kumar Kumawat vs Rpsc Ajmer on 18 January, 2021
(1 of 10) [CW-5699/2014]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5699/2014
1. Rohit kumar Kumawat S/o Shri Om Prakash Kumawat, aged
28 years, R/o Near RSEB Office, NH-11, Sikar Road, Govindgarh,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Mamta Sharma D/o Mahesh Chand Sharma, aged 26 years,
R/o 113, Nasiya Colony, Gangapurcity, Distt. Sawai Madhopur
3. Saurabh Khatana S/o Gyan Singh Khatana, aged 24 years,
R/o Qtr. No. 273/A Loco Colony, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai Mad-
hopur.
4. Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/o Sh. Kailash Chandar Sharma,
aged 34 yars, R/o Plot o. A-272, Old Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
5. Shabana D/o Abdul Sattar W/o Zakir Hussain, aged 34 years,
R/o Sana Phot Studio, Clock Tower, Tonk.
6. Mool Chand Mundhra S/o Lt. Sh. Gopal Das Mundhra, aged
39 years, R/o Near Chhote Gopal Ji Temple, Rattani Vyaso Ka
Chowk, Bikaner.
7. Vijay Anand Pareek S/o Krishan Kumar Pareek, aged 34
years, R/o V&P Rampura Dabri, Via Jaipura,Distt. Jaipur-303704
8. Abhay Singh S/o Arun Singh, aged 24 years, R/o A-12,
Ganesh Colony, Khatipura Road, Jaipur.
9. Rinku Verma D/o Birbal Ram W/o Kamlesh Kumar, aged 21
years, R/o Ward NO. 20, Molvi Bas Dabli Rathan, Hanumangarh-
335801.
10. Neeraj Kumar Sharma S/o Pyare Lal Sharma, aged 40 years,
R/o Plot No. 5, Behind Sandeepan School, Court Road, Alwar Distt.
Alwar.
.....Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary,
Ajmer.
2. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, De-
partment of Administrative Reforms, Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5562/2014
(Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:33:08 PM)
(2 of 10) [CW-5699/2014]
Ramesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 28 years, son of Shri Banshid-
har Yadav, resident of Dagar Engineering Works, Udaipuriya Mod,
Post Hadota, via Choumu, District Jaipur.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary,
Ajmer.
2. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Depart-
ment of Administrative Reforms, Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5706/2014
Rakesh Kumar Mittal s/o Sh. Bhagwan Lal Mittal, Aged 37 yrs, R/o
Third Floor, 31 Ka 08, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
....Petitioner
Versus
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Amer through it's Secre-
tary.
....Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7019/2014
Anand Sharma S/o Prabhu Dayal Sharma, aged about 30 years,
R/o Village Ishwari Singhpura, Post Footolaw, Tehsil Jamwaram-
garh, District Jaipur.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary,
Ajmer.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, (Government
of Rajasthan Secretariat), Jaipur.
....Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7786/2014
1. Manu Choudhary S/o Satyaveer Choudhary, aged 37 years,
R/o 55 Gayatri Nagar-B, Burgapura, Jaipur.
2. Rajendra Kumar Khatri S/o Jethmal Khatri, 32-A, Sivpuri Gali
No. 2, Sanganer, Mahamandir, Jodhpur (Raj)-342006
3. Subhash Chandra Pilaniya S/o Deep Chand Pilaniya, aged 40
years, R/o Village Nawalgarh, Post Birol, Distt Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:33:08 PM)
(3 of 10) [CW-5699/2014]
4. Dev Chand S?o Shri Shiv Buxram, aged 39 years, R/o VPO
Dadia Via Katrathal, Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
5. Chadra Prakash Vyas S/o Ganesh Das Vyas, Aged 27 years,
R/o E-61, Murlidhar Vyas Nagar, Amar Gayan School Wali Gali,
Bikaner (Raj.)
6. Swati D/o Bhagwan Das, Aged about 35 years, R/o 65/136,
Heera Path, Mansarover, Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Jaidev Acharya S/o Shri Vasudev Acharya, Aged about 40
eyars R/o Daftri Baheti Chowk, Sewakon Ki Gali, Bikaner (Raj.)
334005.
....Petiitoner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary,
Ajmer.
2. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, De-
partment of Administrative Reforms, Secretariat, Jaipur.
....Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah
Ms. Sushila Kalwania
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vibhor Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment
18/01/2021
1. The petitioners by way of these writ petitions have chal-
lenged the result dated 10.04.2014 whereby the petitioners have
been ousted from the selection process and submitted that the
same be declared illegal and arbitrary.
2. It is stated that the action of Rajasthan Public Service Com-
mission (in short, "RPSC") in adopting negative marking scheme
for evaluating the Hindi Stenography and Type Test Script may be
declared illegal and further direct the RPSC to re-check the Type
(Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:33:08 PM)
(4 of 10) [CW-5699/2014]
Test Script and dictation-sheet of Hindi stenography under Phase-
II Stenographer Examination without adopting negative marking
scheme.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that RPSC had
published the procedure for conducting the Phase-II Examination
of Stenographer wherein it was mentioned that a candidate who
secured 36% minimum marks in Hindi Stenography alone would
be allowed to participate in the Examination of the English Stenog-
raphy. The marking process nowhere envisaged the negative
marking and however, the respondents have adopted negative
marking process which has resulted in ousting the petitioners from
participation in the English Stenography Examination. It is stated
that by an interim order, this Court has allowed the petitioners to
participate in the English Stenography Examination and the result
of the English Stenography Examination was declared for 29 other
candidates who have already been given appointment and may
not be allowed to be impleaded as a party to the petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court to
Para 5 of the affidavit and to submit that the negative marking has
been done for mistakes alone resulting in a situation where a can-
didate who commits 320 mistakes would be awarded 18 marks out
of 50, while the candidates who have 480 correct words would be
only awarded 18 marks out of 50. So mistake based marking has
been done which reflects that it is a negative marking process.
Learned counsel submits that if a person has answered 60% cor-
rect words, he ought to be given marks for the same and not for
the mistakes committed. Such a process is unjustified.
(Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:33:08 PM)
(5 of 10) [CW-5699/2014]
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that dur-
ing the pendency of this writ petition. In 2018, the examining
body has changed its pattern and now they have clearly stated
that there will be no negative marking in the next selection
process.
6. Learned counsel has further submitted that on account of
such fallacious approach of marking, only 29 candidates were able
to get selection done out of total 526 seats which were available
for filling up the post of Stenographer.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
has submitted that there is no negative marking conducted and the formula and procedure which was published by the RPSC at the time of conducting of examination was strictly followed.
8. I have considered the submissions.
9. This Court finds that the RPSC had published a criteria which would be followed for the purpose of conducting Phase-II Exami- nation of Stenography. The same provided that for the purpose of Hindi Stenography, the total number of words would be 800 in dic- tation and the time provided would be 10 minutes. The marks pro- vided would be 50 and the minimum marks required would be 36. That apart, it was specifically mentioned in Hindi as under:-
jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx] vtesj 'kh?kz fyfid in gsrq f}rh; pj.k dh ijh{kk dh fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k 'kh?kz fyfid ¼oLrqfu"B½ ijh{kk esa mÙkh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ks dks f}rh; pj.k es dEI;wVj ij izk;ksfxd (Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:33:08 PM) (6 of 10) [CW-5699/2014] ijh{kk gsrq mifLFkr gksuk gksxkA ;g ijh{kk dEI;wVj ij vkWuykbu dh tk;sxhA izk;ksfxd ijh{kk ds vUrxZr 2 iz'ui= gksaxsA iz-i=la- fo"k; ijh{k.k Lke; vad U;wure vgZrk 1 fgUnh Jqrys[ku 10 feuV 50 36 ¼80 'kCn izfr feuV½ dqy 800 'kCnksa dk Jqrysf[kr 70 feuV ys[kka'k dk izfrys[ku ,oa Vadu 2 vaxzth Jqrys[ku 10 feuV 50 36 ¼10 'kCn izfr feuV½ dqy 1000 'kCnksa dk Jqrysf[kr 60 feuV ys[kka'k dk izfrys[ku ,oa Vadu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks iz'u i= ifjPNsn ¼Paragraph/Passage½ ;k i= ds :i esa fn;s tk,axsA vaxzth vk'kqfyfi ijh{kk izfØ;k esa dsoy mUgh vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lfEefyr fd;k tk,xk] tks fgUnh vk'kqfyfi ijh{kk esa mDrkuqlkj U;wure vgZrk izkIr dj ysx a saA vaxzsth vk'kqfyfi ijh{kk dh frfFk vk;ksx }kjk ckn esa r; dh tk,xhA (Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:33:08 PM) (7 of 10) [CW-5699/2014] vH;fFkZ;ks ds ewY;kadu esa mudh Vad.k laca/kh =qfV ds fy, vad dkVs tk,axsA =qfV gsrq ifjxf.kr dfri; lkekU; =qfV;ksa dh lwph fuEukuqlkj gS %& 1- xyr o.kZ] 'kCn ;k vad fy[kuk 2- o.kksZa] 'kCnksa ;k vadks dk NwVuk 3- o.kksZ] 'kCnksa] vadks ;k iafDr dh iqujko`fRr djuk 4- fojke fpUgksa dk xyr iz;ksx djuk ;k xyr txg iz;ksx djuk 5- ifjPNsn o 'kCn&varjky esa =qfV djuk 6- vaxzsth esa dSfiVy ,oa Leky ysVj dk xyr iz;ksx djuk 7- fgUnh esa ek=kvksa dk xyr iz;ksx djukA**
10. It means that assessment would be on the basis of deducting marks for mistakes. The mistakes for which marks shall be deducted were also mentioned and illustrated in the notification issued by the RPSC. Thus, candidates were having full knowledge that the marks shall be deducted for each mistake. In the affidavit, which has been filed by the RPSC, it has been specifically explained as to how the publication procedure has been strictly followed. Para 5 of the affidavit reads as under:-
"That so far as the contention of the petitioners with regard to negative marking is concerned, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this regard from the Hon'ble Court as the respondents have not adopted the formula of negative marking while evaluating the typing script of the participating candidates and the marking has been done strictly as per the examination scheme for phase 2 of the stenographer selection process provided under Annexure-5. The participating candidates for the Hindi Steno Typing test were required to type 800 words @80 words per minute for 10 minutes maximum awardable marks being 50. The formula adopted for evaluating is being given as under:-
"Total words -800@80 words per minute for 10 minutes (Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:33:08 PM) (8 of 10) [CW-5699/2014] Maximum Marks -50 Marks to be deducted for every 01 mistake - 0.10 mark (2 partial mistakes = 1 full mistake) i.g.- if a candidate commits total 320 mistakes, 32 marks will be deducted from maximum marks of 50 and he will secure 18 marks. (50-32=18) i.e. 36% of 50 marks =For securing minimum 18 marks a candidate has to type 480 correct words out of 800 words i.e. 60% correct words of total 800 words."
11. Thus, from the perusal of the notice issued by the RPSC, it is apparent that the petitioners with full knowledge proceeded to appear in the examination. After having participated in the examination and having failed on account of the marks being deducted for the mistakes committed by them, they cannot turn around and challenge the said procedure and say that the marking was unjustified. Such procedure of approbate and reprobate cannot be allowed by a candidate who participated with his full eyes open having full knowledge that in the examination marking will be done on the basis of mistakes committed and not for correct answer. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that is in the subsequent selections which were being conducted in 2018, the procedure has been given a go bye, would not create a right in their favour in relation to the examination which was conducted in 2011.
12. In view thereof, the submission of the counsel for the petitioners fails. No relief can be granted to the petitioners. Even though, interim order may have been passed in their favour for participating in the English Stenography Examination although they failed in the Hindi Stenography Examination. Since it was a pre-condition which was not challenged at the relevant time, now (Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:33:08 PM) (9 of 10) [CW-5699/2014] the same cannot be challenged after having failed in the Hindi Stenography Examination.
13. In view of the above and as per the law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus Surender Singh & others, 2019 (8) SCC 67, it was held as under:-
"From a perusal of the said Clause it is noticed that though under the very Clause there is no cut-off marks specified, Clause 25 would, however, provide the full discretion to the DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks for selection. In the instant case, keeping in view that the recruitment was for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and also taking note of the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier petition requiring the maintenance of minimum standards, the DSSSB while preparing the select list had stopped the selection at a point which was indicated as the cut-off percentage. In a circumstance where Clause 25 was depicted in the Advertisement No. 1/2006, when the private Respondents herein and the other Petitioners before the High Court were responding to the said Advertisement, if at all they had a grievance that the Clause is arbitrary and might affect their right ultimately since no minimum marks that is to be obtained has been indicated therein, they were required to assail the same at that stage. On the other hand, despite being aware of the Clause providing discretion to DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks, they have participated in the selection process by appearing for the qualifying examination without raising any protest. In that circumstance, the principle of approbate and reprobate would apply and the private (Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:33:08 PM) (10 of 10) [CW-5699/2014] Respondents herein or any other candidate who participated in the process cannot be heard to complain in that regard."
14. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
15. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J SAURABH YADAV /132-136 (Downloaded on 25/01/2021 at 09:33:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)