Manish Kumar Garg S/O Uday Bhanu ... vs Chief Personnel Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 159 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12651/2021

Manish Kumar Garg S/o Uday Bhanu Garg, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o 24, Maa Vaishno Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.   Chief Personnel Officer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Parasan
Nigam Ltd. Jaipur.
2.   The Chairman cum Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Parasan Nigam Ltd. Jaipur. Registered office at Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur 302005.
3.   The Secretary, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd.
Jaipur registered office at Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur 302005.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rachit Sharma through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

07/01/2022

For the reasons stated in the application (1/2021) filed by

the petitioner seeking impleadment of the Chairman cum

Managing Director, RRVPN Ltd., Jaipur & the Secretary, RRVPN

Ltd., Jaipur as respondents No.2 & 3 respectively, which is not

opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, the same is

allowed. The amended cause title appended with the application is

taken on record.

Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned Senior Counsel appears for the

newly impleaded respondents.

For the reasons stated in the application No.2/2021 for early

listing, the same is allowed.

(2 of 5) [CW-12651/2021]

On the joint request of learned counsels for the parties, the

writ petition was heard finally at this stage on its merit.

The petitioner, an aspirant for appointment on the post of

Informatics Assistant, has filed this writ petition against rejection

of his candidature by the respondents on account that he has not

secured 30% minimum passing marks, i.e., 24 marks in Part-B of

Phase-I examination, with a direction to the respondents to permit

him to participate in Phase-II examination as well as to accord him

appointment with all consequential benefits, if found in merit.

The facts in brief, as emerge from the writ petition, are that

the petitioner applied in pursuance of an advertisement dated

22.02.2021 issued by the respondents inviting applications for

appointment on various posts including Informatics Assistant. The

selection criteria comprised of competitive examination divided in

two phases, i.e., Phase-I and Phase-II. Phase-I comprised of two

papers i.e., Part-A having 60% weightage and Part-B having 40%

weightage. The petitioner secured 120.5 marks in Phase-I of the

examination i.e., more than the last cut off marks i.e. 109, in the

unreserved category; but, still, he was denied permission to

appear in the Phase-II of the examination on the premise that he

did not secure 30% marks in Part-B of the Phase-I examination.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he has

secured 30% marks in Phase-I examination, he is eligible to

undertake Phase-II examination as provided under sub-Clause (5)

of Clause 10 of the advertisement. He contended that in absence

of any such condition in the advertisement to the effect that a

candidate securing minimum 30% marks in both the parts, i.e., A

& B, shall only be eligible to appear in Phase-II, rejection of his

candidature on the premise that he failed to secured 30% marks,

(3 of 5) [CW-12651/2021]

i.e., 24 marks in Part-B of the written examination comprising of

80 marks, is bad in law. He, therefore, prayed that the writ

petition be allowed and the respondents may be directed to permit

him to undergo Phase-II examination and accord him appointment

if found in the merit list.

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents

submitted that as per Schedule-II of the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut

Utpadan Nigam Engineers Service Regulations, 2016 (for brevity

"the Regulations of 2016") a candidate acquires eligibility to

appear in Phase-II examination only if he secures 30% marks in

each part of Phase-I. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that since

the petitioner failed to secure 30% marks, i.e., 24 marks out of 80

marks in the Part-B paper of Phase-I examination, he is not

qualified to undergo Phase-II examination. He, therefore, prayed

for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

Clause 10(6) of Schedule-II of the Regulations of 2016

provides as under:-

"10(6). To become eligible for consideration for

appointment, candidates shall be required to secure

minimum passing marks in each Part of Phase-I as

detailed below in the written competitive exams:-

(i) UR category candidates - 30% marks"

Indisputably, the petitioner has failed to secure minimum

qualifying marks, i.e., 30% (24) in Part-B of Phase-I examination.

In these circumstances, the respondents have committed no error

in rejecting his candidature to participate in further recruitment

process. Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

(4 of 5) [CW-12651/2021]

since, the advertisement does not contain any such stipulation,

rejection of his candidature is bad in law, does not merit

acceptance. It is trite that recruitment process and the eligibility

criteria has to be in conformity with the Rules/Regulations

applicable.

The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Ashish

Kumar versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 3

Supreme Court Cases 55, held as under:-

"27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is made in the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission. Para 21 of the judgment lays down the above proposition which is to the following effect:

21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1.7.2001 and 1.7.2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of

(5 of 5) [CW-12651/2021]

the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules."

Even otherwise also, it has specifically been mentioned in the

advertisement that the Regulations of 2016 are applicable for all

purposes and the candidates are advised to refer to them.

Since, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is in

conformity with the Regulations of 2016, the writ petition is devoid

of merit.

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/67

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)