Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan Public Service ... vs Jitendra Singh Bamboriya Son Of ... on 21 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 8/2021
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. 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.).
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
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M F Baig
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shushila Kalwania
Mr. Shovit Jhajaria
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
21/01/2021
Counsel for the RPSC has preferred this review petition
seeking review of the order passed by this Court dated
07.01.2021 on the ground that certain facts which have been
noticed by this Court in para 15 are contrary to the actual record
(2 of 3) [WRW-8/2021]
and thus an error apparent on the face of record has been
committed.
Learned counsel submits that although in the review petition
the RPSC did mention what has been noticed in para 15 of the
said judgment, however, in fact, as per the RTI information made
available to the petitioner, it was pointed out that the result was
declared category-wise and candidates from each category in the
ratio of 1:3 had been called for interview.
This Court in para 15 of the judgment has observed as
under:-
"15.The RPSC in its written submissions has
also pointed out that1:3 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
different from those as cited in Indra Sawhney
(supra), Rajesh Daria (supra) and Anil Kumar Gupta
(supra)."
(3 of 3) [WRW-8/2021]
In view of the factual situation being otherwise and that the
RPSC has called candidates each category wise, the judgment
passed by this Court requires to be reviewed. It is held to be on
factually wrong basis and is accordingly recalled.
The writ petition be again listed for hearing on 03.02.2021.
Interim order passed by this Court in the present writ
petition which was operating prior to passing of the judgment shall
stand restored.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NITIN /36
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
