Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. On 1.6.2007, advertisement was issued for 155 posts of seven State Services and 526 posts of Subordinate Services. Posts have been increased subsequently to 713 in total. On 23.12.2007, preliminary examination was conducted in which approximately 3 lacs candidates appeared. Result of the preliminary examination was declared on 13.3.2008. After declaration of the result, 15 times to the number of vacancies i.e.11,726 candidates were allowed to appear in the main examination.

3. It is not in dispute that there were 37 optional subjects and 4 compulsory papers. There were 74 question papers in optional subjects and 4 compulsory papers. Thus, there were 78 papers in total. From 30.7.2008 to 25.8.2008, the main examination was conducted in the aforesaid subjects. Before declaration of the final result on 17.3.2009, the Commission held meeting of various experts whether it was proper to apply the scaling system. Experts had reviewed the method of scaling of score/marks obtained by examinees and discussed Ad longtum as also perused the proceedings of Standing Committee held on 2.2.2009 and resolved to implement the scaling method to remove variation in examiners as well as subjects. Subject-wise scaling has been resorted to in the optional subjects, whereas in four compulsory papers and 33 optional subjects only examiner-wise scaling has been adopted. There were 385 examiners in all. After scaling, result of the main examination was declared and 2679 candidates were called for interview. The excess number of candidates were called for interview to bring Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates at par with the General Category candidates as per the decision of this Court in Bhawani Singh Kaviya & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.(SB Civil Writ Petition No.2307/2008 decided on 13.5.2008. In the main examination, last cut-off marks of the OBC was more than the General Category, hence to bring the candidates of OBC Category at par with the General Category, those OBC candidates who had obtained the marks equivalent to cut-off marks of General Category candidates were also called for interview.

4. With effect from 1.6.2009 to 9.9.2009, interviews of 2678 candidates was conducted. Thereafter, final result was declared on 9.9.2009. Names were recommended to the State Government, as per choice, on 20.10.2009.

5. The petitioners have canvassed that one Ms.Mamta Tiwari was at rank No.1 with raw marks 849 and on scaling, her marks were reduced by 15. Thus, by applying the method of scaling she has been placed at Serial No.9 in the merit. Another shocking example is of a candidate who secured 838 raw marks and was 3rd in ranking as per raw marks but her marks were reduced by 71 and placed at general ranking at No.194. Ranking of a person as per raw marks at No.13 has been reduced to 283 after scaling. A person who had 52 ranking on the basis of raw marks, after scaling was placed at No.5 and so on. Thus, absurd results have occurred due to the application of scaling method. Petitioners have submitted certain data in the petition indicating as to how scaling of marks caused anomalous results. It is also averred that in the case of one Ms.Sunita Meena, who is perhaps the relative of Shri H.L. Meena, Member, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, wrongful scaling was done. The children of close friends and relatives have been given benefit not only in scaling but at the level of interview too. One Narendra Choudhary, relative of Shri C.R. Choudhary, Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission has also been given benefit of increase of marks from 726 to 792. Thus, the examination conducted by the Commission is in a cloud of doubt.

9. It is further contended that Ms.Sunita Meena is not at all in relation of Shri H.L. Meena, Member, Rajasthan Public Service Commission nor Shri H.L. Meena had participated in the interview; even Shri Meena was not a member of the Interview Board. Other averments have also been denied. Allegations levelled are baseless. No nepotism or favouritism has been done. Even as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (supra), scaling is permitted in such exigencies. Examination in Sanjay Singh (supra) was for judicial service where the question papers were common, thus the facts of the instant case are different. No case for interference is made out.

37. The submission raised by Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma that Ms. Sunita Meena had been benefited by favouritism is equally hollow. It cannot be said that the formula had been wrongly applied in her case. There is no specific averment in the petition that she is relative of Shri H.L. Meena, Member, Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the petition, it is averred that perhaps she is relative of Shri H.L. Meena. There is no specific averment made. Shri H.L. Meena, was not even member of the Interview Board. Thus, the submission has been made only for the sake of rejection and is hereby rejected. Similarly no categorical case has been made out by the learned counsel of any particular favouritism caused except making a vague submission at Bar in general. Merely because some students have been given higher marks in the interview, it cannot be said that there was mala fide. There are incidence when the students obtained higher marks in the interview also and they have been benefited by method of scaling also, merely by that, it cannot be inferred that the action ipso facto is rendered mala fide by the aforesaid fact. We do not find that the case of mala fide or award of higher marks in the interview, has been substantiated by the petitioners.