Bhanwar Lal Choudhary S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 121 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3256/2020

Jitendra Singh Bamboriya Son Of Shri Ram Kunwar Bamboriya,
Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Dhani Bamboriya Ki Dhani,
Village And Post Mokhampura, Tehsil Mouzmbad, District Jaipur
(Raj.)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
         Secretary.
2.       State   Of    Rajasthan,         Through         The      Additional   Chief
         Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.
4.       Ashvini Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Kishan Lal Vyas, Aged About
         22 Years, R/o Village And Post Bheemgarh, Tehsil Rashmi,
         District Chittorgarh.
5.       Pinky Goyal D/o Shri Om Prakash Goyal, R/o Itawa,
         District Kota-325004.
                                                                   ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1429/2020 Bhanwar Lal Choudhary S/o Shri Parshuram Choudhary, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Morla, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk-304503 (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shovit Jhajharia, Adv. & Ms. Sushila Kalwania, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig, Adv.

(2 of 8) [CW-3256/2020]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment / Order

Reserved on 16/12/2020 Pronounced on 07/01/2021

1. Petitioners by way of these writ petitions challenge action of

the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short,

'RPSC') in calling for few candidates for various categories for

interview without declaring cut-off marks for screening test

conducted by them.

2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions

are being noted.

3. The RPSC issued an advertisement on 13/04/2018 inviting

applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Agriculture

Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry) in terms of the Rajasthan

Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. In all 38 posts were

advertised out of which 5 posts were reserved for OBC (General),

2 posts for OBC (Women). A corrigendum was thereafter issued on

13/09/2019 whereby 1 post for MBC category was notified.

Another corrigendum was issued on 13/09/2019 providing that the

selection process would be based on 40% weightage of marks

obtained in screening test and out of remaining 60%, 20%

weightage was to be in relation to academic record and 40% on

the personal interview which was to be of 100 marks.

4. The screening test was conducted on 29/05/2019 and the

petitioners in both the writ petitions appeared in the screening

test as per their respective category the result of which was

declared on 17/12/2019 and 119 candidates were declared

successful and shortlisted for calling for interview.

(3 of 8) [CW-3256/2020]

5. The grievance raised in these writ petitions is that the result

of the screening test was neither declared category-wise nor cut-

off marks were declared and the petitioners, therefore, raised an

apprehension that the candidates who may belong to general

category and had obtained less marks than the petitioners would

be called for interview while the petitioners have been left out.

6. The RPSC has supported the result and submitted that the

result of 199 candidates was declared provisionally in the ratio of

1:3 against total 39 posts so advertised. It is stated that since the

RPSC conducted the screening test which is to shortlist the

candidates and to check the eligibility, therefore, there was no

occasion to the RPSC to declare cut-off marks of each category

and it was sufficient to declare the result of the screening test in

the ratio of 1:3 against the advertised vacancies. It is further

submitted that the reservation criteria shall apply only at the

stage of final selection and not at every stage of selection process

like screening test, shortlisting/preliminary examination and in

support of the same, reliance has been placed on the judgments

rendered in Dharmveer Tholia & Ors. Vs. State (Raj. & Anr.)

2003(3) WLC 399; Hanuman Jat & Ors. Vs. State (Revenue

Dept.) (DBSAW No.635/2016), decided on 13/05/2016;

Sangeeta Yadav Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SBCWP

No.20095/2012), decided on 14/12/2012 and Megha Sharma

Vs. RPSC (SBCWP No.13637/2017), decided on 02/08/2018.

7. Learned counsel for the RPSC has further submitted that in

the writ petition, titled as Shailender Singh Vs. State (SBCWP

No.14890/2019, the High Court dismissed the writ petition

where a similar prayer for declaring cut-off marks of respective

category was made and the judgment has been upheld by the

(4 of 8) [CW-3256/2020]

Division Bench vide its order dated 03/12/2019. Learned counsel

also cited an order passed by the Apex Court in A.P. PSC Vs.

Baloji Badhabath (Civil Appeal No.244/2009) (Para 22) and

also the order passed in Nair Service Society Vs. T.

Beermashtan (2009) AIR SC(W) 2638) (Para 25) and

judgment of Kerala High Court in CR Ranjith Vs. High Court

of Kerala & Ors. (WP (C) No.24737/2008 (R) (Para 23).

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand,

submitted that if category-wise result is not declared, there are

possibilities of the candidates of general category having lesser

merit being called for interview leaving aside the candidates of

OBC having higher marks. Learned counsel further submitted that

non-declaration of cut-off marks goes against the principles of

transparency in examinations. Reliance has been placed on the

judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney Vs.

Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477); Rajesh Daria Vs. RPSC &

Ors: (2007) 8 SCC 785 and Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of

UP: (1995) 5 SCC 173.

9. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner-Bhanwar Lal

Choudhary in SBCWP No.1429/2020 has further submitted that

the petitioner has submitted representation to the RPSC where he

was informed that it would be possible to provide the related

information only after completing the selection process. Learned

counsel further submitted that in another examination conducted

for Sub-Inspector, Platoon Commander, the cut-off marks were

provided of the written examination by the RPSC and no reason

for departure in the present selection has been shown by the

RPSC. It is submitted that once the advertisement was issued

category-wise for General, OBC, SC, ST and MBC as well as for

(5 of 8) [CW-3256/2020]

Specially Disabled, non-mentioning of cut-off for each category in

calling candidates in the ratio of 1:3 is wholly unjustified. Learned

counsel further submitted that even for the Rajasthan Civil

Services Combined Competitive Examinations where the

preliminary examination is conducted and even the marks of the

preliminary examination are not declared, the candidates are

called in the ratio of 1:3 from each category.

10. I have considered the submissions.

11. After the corrigendum having been issued whereby the total

marks have been separated into 40% of the marks obtained in the

screening test and 40% from interview, actually the screening test

becomes a written examination and the entire examination is

converted into three parts; written examination, interview and

academic record for overall assessment and merit. The process

being a complete process including written examination and

interview, marks obtained in the written examination cannot be

declared as it would affect the interview process also. This Court

has held so in Rajesh Kumar Peeploda & Ors. Vs. State &

Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.8329/2020 & other connected

matter, decided on 17/12/2020.

12. This Court accepts submission of the RPSC that the

reservation can be provided only at the stage of final selection and

cannot be applied at the stage of written examination as has been

held by this Court in Rajesh Kumar Peeploda & Ors. (supra)

and as held by the Court in the judgments as cited by RPSC. On

this count, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the

petitioners based on mere apprehension that the OBC candidates

cannot be called for interview and lesser meritorious candidates be

called is misconceived. The screening test has been now converted

(6 of 8) [CW-3256/2020]

into written examination. All the candidates get an entry for

appearing in the written test as well as in the interview and as per

their merit, the cut-off shall be declared of each category.

13. The Apex Court in a recent judgment rendered on

13/12/2019 in Pranav Verma & Ors. Vs. The Registrar

General of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at

Chandigarh & Anr. [Writ Petition (Civil) No.565/2019] has

held as under:-

"As regards the petitioners' plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, we are of the considered opinion that such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism. The broad principles to be laid down in this regard must be viewed keeping in view the selections for various categories of posts by different Selecting Authorities, for such a self-evolved criteria cannot be restricted to Judicial Services only. If the Members of the Interviewing Boards are already aware of the marks of a candidate secured in the Written Examination, they can individually or jointly tilt the final result in favour or against such candidate. The suggested recourse, thus, is likely to form bias affecting the impartial evaluation of a candidate in viva-voce. The acceptance of the plea of the petitioners in this regard will also run contrary to the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana. As the written examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, the interview is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a judicial post. Any measure which fosters bias in the minds of the interviewers, therefore, must be done away with."

14. The contention of the petitioners that cut-off marks for each

category are required to be declared as was done in the case of

selection for the post of Sub-Inspectors is wholly misconceived.

The rule governing the Sub-Inspectors Examination is a separate

(7 of 8) [CW-3256/2020]

set of rules which lays down a specific direction of declaration of

result of written examination and no equality can be claimed on

the said basis as the present rules governing the selection for the

post of Assistant Agriculture Research Officers are governed by

the Rules of 1978.

15. The RPSC in its written submissions has also pointed out that

1:3 number of candidates have been called. Thus, for 39 posts,

119 candidates have been called. Thus, 119 candidates would

cover all the categories. It is not case of the petitioners that any

particular category stands unrepresented. On the other hand, the

only submission raised before this Court is that the candidates

from OBC category having higher merit may be left out which is

wholly fallacious as the RPSC is declaring the result on 1:3 basis

with relation to overall marks without going into declaring in the

ratio of 1:3 in each category. Since the word 'each category' is not

available in the rules, no mandamus or direction can be issued to

the RPSC to declare the result each category-wise. The RAS and

Allied Services Examinations are conducted under The Rajasthan

State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined

Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1999 which provide for

declaration of result of preliminary examination in each category

in the ratio of 1:3. Such provision is not available under the Rules

of 1978. A rule imbibed in a particular set of rules cannot be

imposed on another set of rules where it is absent. In view

therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is

not found to be having force. The judgments cited at bar by

learned counsel for the petitioners, as noted above, would have no

application to the present case as the facts of the present case are

(8 of 8) [CW-3256/2020]

different from those as cited in Indra Sawhney (supra), Rajesh

Daria (supra) and Anil Kumar Gupta (supra).

16. In view of above, both these writ petitions fail and the same

are accordingly dismissed. The interim order passed by the Court

earlier also stands vacated. The RPSC shall now proceed further

and conclude the selection process for the post of Assistant

Agriculture Research Officer. No costs.

17. All pending applications stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

Raghu

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)