Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ravindra Kaviya vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 September, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:37440-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 788/2024
Ravindra Kaviya S/o Shri Sampat Singh Kaviya, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Ward No. 29, Near Jangid Bhawan Station Road,
Laxman Garh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Law And Justice, Secretariat, Rajasthan
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohd. Asif Khan
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
JUDGMENT
09/09/2024
Per, Kuldeep Mathur,J.
The appellant by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.7893/2024 had prayed for the following relief:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an
appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(i) That the impugned result annexure P/4 dated
30.11.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside. The
petitioner may kindly be directed to be included in the
list of successful candidates in the Ex-serviceman
category by giving grace marks to him in paper 2 nd
and the RPSC may kindly be directed to take the vivo-
voce of the petitioner.
(ii). That if the petitioner secures more marks in the
Ex-serviceman category then the cut off which is to be
issued, the respondents may kindly be directed to
provide the appointment with all consequential
benefits.
(iii) That if during the pendency of the writ petition the
final result is issued by the RPSC of the post of JLO
[2024:RJ-JD:37440-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-788/2024]
and further appointments are being made, the same
may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed. The
respondents be directed to provide appointment on
the post of JLO if he stands in the merit list of his
category."
2. The appellant had appeared in the selection procedure for
the post of Jr. Legal Officer (JLO) held by the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission (RPSC). The appellant, who belongs to the
Ex-servicemen category, could not secure minimum qualifying
marks and consequently, he was declared unsuccessful in the
written examination conducted by the RPSC for the post of JLO.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the RPSC, in its discretion could award grace marks upto 01 in
each paper, where a candidate is short of such minimum qualifying
marks. The appellant is short of just 1.35 marks in one paper, the
discretion of grant of one grace mark ought to have been
exercised by the RPSC in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed
by the petitioner was pleased to observe in para 5 as under:
"So far as the relaxation in terms of Rule 18A of the
Rules of 1988 already having been granted to the
petitioner is concerned, this Court is not required to go
into the said issue as a bare perusal of the mark sheet of
the petitioner makes it clear that he is short of more
than one mark in one paper. Therefore, the grace marks
which can be awarded only up to one in each paper,
even if awarded, would not hold the petitioner qualified.
Therefore, no indulgence can be granted in favour of the
petitioner and the present writ petition is hence,
dismissed."
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the
appellant was short of just 1.35 marks, the RPSC should have
rounded off the same to 02 marks. Learned counsel further
submitted that if the rounding off is applied in the present case,
[2024:RJ-JD:37440-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-788/2024]
the marks of the appellant would have increased and he would be
able to qualify the written examination conducted by the RPSC.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
material available on record.
7. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of "Sandeep v.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.: Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No.1042/2014" has held that if there is no power
provided in the statute/rules pertaining to rounding off the marks
so as to bring up a candidate to minimum requirement, no such
rounding off or relaxation is permissible.
8. Indisputably, the appellant did not secure minimum of the
prescribed cut off marks. He had secured marks which are less
than qualifying marks. No provision has been shown to us which
permits rounding off the marks so as to bring up the candidate to
the minimum marks which are required to be selected. No dilution
in the requirement of minimum of marks is thus permissible.
9. This Court does not find any error of law in the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed being bereft of
any merit.
11. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
Sr.No.40 - /tarun goyal/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
