Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prem Singh vs R. P. S. C., Ajmer on 20 September, 2011
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
ORDER
(1)-S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3705/2009
Ram Narayan Bhanwreya Vs. State and Anr.
(2)-S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4620/2009
Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State and Anr.
(3)-S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1007/2010
Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. RPSC and Anr.
(4)-S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8305/2010
Sunder Mal Vs. RPSC and Anr.
(5)-S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1033/2009
Prem Singh Vs. RPSC and Anr.
Date of Order :: 20.09.2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Dr. P.S. Bhati ) for the petitioners.
Mr. B.S. Sandhu)
Mr. Sushil Bishnoi)
Mr. J.P. Joshi, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Tarun Joshi ) for the respondent/s.
....
BY THE COURT :
This batch of petition for writ involves a similar question for adjudication, thus, heard collectively and are disposed of by a common order.
2
The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner under the Notification dated 9.4.2007 invited applications from the eligible candidates to face Sub-Inspector Police Combined Competition Examination, 2007, for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector Police (Armed Police), Platoon Commander (Rajasthan Armed constabulary) and Sub-Inspector (Mewar Bhil Corps). The petitioners appeared in the written examination, that was conducted on 26.8.2007. On qualifying the same, the petitioners were also permitted to undergo physical examination. On 23.12.2008, the Commission declared result of the examination and also the cut-off marks provided for different categories, those are as under :
General : 332
General (F) : 263
OBC : 332
OBC (F) : 263
SC : 297
SC (F) : 212
ST : 299
ST (F) : 214
The petitioners availed their marks-sheet through inter-net from the site of the respondent- Commission. It was noticed that in the compulsory subject of Hindi, the Commission adopted a mode of 'scaling'. Being aggrieved by the same, these petitions for writ are preferred.
3
The argument of the petitioners is that in the compulsory subject like Hindi, the mode of scaling was not required to be adopted, as that is applicable only where any possibility exists for disparity in the grant of marks, due to the nature of the subject. Reliance is also place by counsel for the petitioners on several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court including the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr. JT 2007 (2) SC 534, wherein it was held that the mode of moderation of marks is proper where the subject papers are common but variation exists on account of large number of examiners, but not the scaling.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission, at the threshold, accepted the preposition advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners with a fair admission that in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including the Sanjay Singh's case (supra) scaling was not the right mode and that could not have been adopted, however, his objection is about extension of relief to the petitioners at this stage, in view of the fact that the process of selection has been completed and appointments have already been given. It is submitted that no appointments now can be given to the petitioners against the vacancies those were notified under the advertisement Annexure-1 dated 9.4.2007, being filled-in much back in the year 2008-2009 itself, and also that the persons selected and 4 employed are not party to the proceedings.
Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am an absolute agreement with learned counsel for the respondent-Commission that though the adoption of scaling in the examination concerned was not in accordance with law in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra), but appointments now cannot be given to the petitioners against the vacancies advertised under the notification dated 9.4.2007 being filled-in in the year 2008-2009 itself.
The relief claimed by the petitioners can certainly be given to them by adopting the same mode as adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra). The candidature of the petitioners can certainly be considered for appointment against the future vacancies. It is the position accepted by the respondent that the future vacancies are available with them.
Accordingly, these petitions for writ are accepted. The formulate of scaling applied by the respondent while determining merit of the candidates, who faced Sub-Inspector Police Combined Competition Examination, 2007 is declared illegal. However, this declaration shall not have any adverse effect to the process of selection already taken place and completed. The candidature of the petitioners shall be considered for 5 appointments to the post of Sub-Inspector against the future vacancies and if any of the petitioner is having higher raw marks than the raw-marks in written examination, the last selected candidate as a consequent to the Examination of 2007, his/her candidature would be considered for appointment in his own category, and on consideration, if he/she stands in merit, appointment be accorded to him/her on the post concerned on or before 1.12.2011. The petitioners if selected, they shall be treated as the recruits against the vacancy year pertaining to that the advertisement dated 9.4.2007 relates and their seniority shall be reckoned accordingly. The relief granted in these petitions for writ shall remain confined to the petitioners only.
( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.
rm/