Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rameshwar Choudhary vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 11 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:37730]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13295/2024
1. Rameshwar Choudhary S/o Shri Jeta Ram Choudhary,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Jato Ka Bas, Dadmi, Tehsil
Bhopalgarh, Jodhpur.
2. Vikram Kuri S/o Shri Ram Niwas Kuri, Aged About 35
Years, Resident Of Tehsil Udaipurwati, Ward No. 11, Dhani
Kuriyon Ki Pachlangi, Jhunjhunun.
3. Kiran Kumari D/o Shri Surender Singh, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Pipal Ka Bas, Ward No. 01, Sonasar,
Jhunjhunun.
4. Mukesh Kumar Aichara S/o Shri Ramchandra Aichara,
Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Via Baya, Tehsil
Dantaramgarh, Banathala, Sikar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commissione, Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG assisted by
Mr. Pawan Bharti.
Mr. Tarun Joshi, through VC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
Reportable
11/09/2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that
the respondents may be directed to revise the result of the
Physically Handicapped Category for the post of Veterinary Officer
[2024:RJ-JD:37730] (2 of 8) [CW-13295/2024]
in pursuance of the selection process undertaken by them vide
advertisement dated 22.10.2019 and it is also prayed that the
petitioners may be granted appointment in the Physically
Handicapped Category on the post of Veterinary Officer.
Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that
the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an
advertisement on 22.10.2019 inviting applications for the post of
Veterinary Officer. The petitioners applied for the post of
Veterinary Officer considering themselves eligible in all respects.
The screening test was conducted by the respondents and 40
marks were allocated for screening test, 20 marks were allocated
for academic records and 40 marks were allocated for interview.
The petitioners being handicapped persons having locomotor
disability, appeared for documents verification and also completed
other formalities. The petitioners were called for interview, but
after completion of the process, their names did not find place in
the select list issued by the respondent- RPSC. Hence, the present
writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that
the petitioners were not aware of the fact that minimum 45%
marks are required to be obtained to qualify for the post of
Veterinary Officer in the present selection process. He further
submits that the condition of acquiring minimum 45% marks for
appointment on the post of Veterinary Officer was not mentioned
in the advertisement. He also submits that the rules of game
cannot be changed after initiation of the process for recruitment.
He further submits that after the present advertisement dated
22.10.2019, in the subsequent advertisements, the respondents
[2024:RJ-JD:37730] (3 of 8) [CW-13295/2024]
have issued a Press Note prescribing minimum qualifying marks
for selection process undertaken by them.
Learned counsel further submits that since in the present
case, no such qualifying marks were mentioned in the
advertisement, therefore, the respondents cannot disqualify the
petitioners on the ground that they have not obtained the
minimum qualifying marks. He also submits that in Rule 20 of
Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Rules, 1963 (hereinafter refers to as
'the Rule of 1963'), the only word 'suitable' has been used and
therefore, the respondent- RPSC was under an obligation to
disclose elaborately the criteria to be applied for judging the
'suitability' for selecting the candidates in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 22.10.2019.
Learned counsel further submits that no document is placed
on record which shows or suggests that minimum 45% marks are
required to be obtained by a candidate in the Category of
Physically Handicapped in the present selection process. He,
therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the
respondents may be directed to consider candidature of the
petitioners for the post of Veterinary Officer without adhering to
the minimum qualifying marks of 45%.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- RPSC
vehemently submits that in the present selection process, the
aggregate of the 45% marks has been prescribed taking into
consideration the decision of Full Commission. He further submits
that earlier for the similar selection, the criteria for judging the
suitability of a candidate was only interview, therefore, a decision
was taken by Full Commission of the RPSC to allocate certain
[2024:RJ-JD:37730] (4 of 8) [CW-13295/2024]
marks for screening and for academic record. This decision was
taken only to reduce unbridled and unchecked discretion of
interview Board by removing arbitrariness and to make the
selection process more fair and transparent.
Learned counsel for the respondent- RPSC further submits
that minimum marks of 45% in the present selections will be after
adding the three components i.e. 40 marks for the Screening Test,
20 marks for the Academics and 40 marks for the interview and if
a candidate secures aggregate 45% marks in Physically
Handicapped category, only then, he will be shortlisted for the
merit list to be prepared for selection on the post of Veterinary
Officer.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that
the respondent- Commission is fully empowered to provide such
marking in view of Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry
Rules, 1963, wherein, it has been mentioned that Commission
shall prepare a list of candidates whom they consider suitable for
appointment to the post concerned, as such, respondents have
clearly formulated the scheme for fair selection in the matter.
Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that in the
advertisement dated 22.10.2019, it was prescribed at the end of
the advertisement that for further information, a candidate is
required to see the Website of the RPSC, wherein, all the
guidelines and instructions have been provided. He further
submits that in those instructions, it is very categorically
mentioned that in the present selection process, the minimum
marks for appointment on the post of Veterinary Officer will be
45% for Physically Handicapped Category as reflected by them in
[2024:RJ-JD:37730] (5 of 8) [CW-13295/2024]
the documents annexed with their reply. The criteria for obtaining
minimum 45% marks was not changed after the selection process
was started and the advertisement was issued on 22.10.2019. It
was already in existence and reflected on the Website of the RPSC
which could have been access/downloaded by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the
petitioners have assailed the validity of the selection process after
having participated in the same and since they have not been
selected, therefore, they have approached this Court by way of
filing the present writ petition.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
respondents relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.5619/2021 (Praveen Kumar Meena
Vs. RPSC & Anr.), decided on 02.05.2023, wherein, in the almost
identical situation, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while
dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner has upheld the
selection criteria and minimum cut-off marks mentioned by the
respondent- Commission. He, therefore, prays that the writ
petition may be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case.
The respondent- Commission advertised the vacancy for the
post of Veterinary Officer vide advertisement dated 22.10.2019
(Annex.1). In the advertisement, at the end, the respondents
have mentioned that the other relevant points and other
information for the candidate is available on the website of the
Commission which can be assessed by the candidate for his
knowledge. The question which is relevant for adjudication in the
[2024:RJ-JD:37730] (6 of 8) [CW-13295/2024]
present case is whether the minimum cut-off marks in the
selection process at hand, can be imposed by the Commission or
not and whether the same was published/made known by the
RPSC before starting the selection process?
The selection criteria adopted in the present case is reflected
in the advertisement which shows that out of 100 marks, 40
marks have been kept for Screening test, 20 marks have been
kept for Academic Record and 40 marks have been prescribed for
interview.
The petitioners were shortlisted in their category for the
interview and after the interview, they were not selected as they
have not secured the minimum 45% marks. The criteria
prescribed for obtaining minimum 45 marks is reflected in the
decision of Full Commission, which is placed on record in such
circumstances.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
no minimum marks were prescribed in the present selection
process as nothing has been mentioned in the advertisement, is
noted to be rejected only on the ground that in the advertisement,
it was mentioned that a candidate may get the requisite relevant
information as well as guidelines and rules from the Website of
RPSC. The decision of Full Commission of RPSC for grant of
minimum marks (45%) is available.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court in somewhat in similar
circumstances in the case of Praveen Kumar Meena (supra) has
held as under:-
"10. It was submitted by Mr. Joshi, learned counsel
for the respondent that the Full Commission in its
Meeting had decided that wherever the selection is to
[2024:RJ-JD:37730] (7 of 8) [CW-13295/2024]
be made, a candidate has to secure 50% marks so far
as General and O.B.C. candidates are concerned and in
case of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
backward Community and physically handicapped it is
45% marks.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the view that petitioner's challenge to the
selection criteria is absolutely untenable.
12. The petitioner having appeared in the selection
process cannot thereafter challenge the process when
he failed to secure requisite marks. The above position
has been settled by Honb'le the Supreme Court in
Anupal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2
SCC 173 which held that a person having consciously
participated in the interview cannot turn around and
challenge the selection process.
13. That apart, this Court does not find any illegality
or arbitrariness in the action of the respondent -
Commission. As a matter of fact, had the Commission
proceeded strictly as per Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules
of 1962 and selected the candidates on the basis of
interview only, it could lead to arbitrariness and would
have affected transparency in the selection process.
The criteria fixed by the respondent ensures
transparency and selection of best candidates.
14. This Court does not find any merit and substance
in the present writ petition, for which it is hereby
dismissed.15.The stay application also stands
dismissed accordingly."
Further, this Court is of the view that Rule 20 of the Rules of
1963 clearly gives power to the Commission to prepare a list of
candidates to whom they consider suitable for appointment to
the post concerned. For judging the suitability of a candidate, the
RPSC has applied certain parameters/procedure for undertaking
the selection process. In the present case, since the suitability for
a candidate has been adjudged to be minimum 45% marks, the
same cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. It is a
settled law that if the parameter/procedure framed by the RPSC or
[2024:RJ-JD:37730] (8 of 8) [CW-13295/2024]
any other authority is fair and impartial and all the candidates are
given the level playing field, then there is no scope for
interference by this Court.
In the present case, since the suitability of a candidate was
adjudged by the Commission to be a person securing minimum
45% marks does not require any interference by this Court. If the
procedure adopted by the respondents is fair and impartial and
because of that even if some candidates are adversely affected,
the Court may refrain from intervening for larger benefit of the
candidates, who have participated in the selection process.
It is also noted that the Rules of selection were not changed
for the selection process as they are very much in existence prior
to the date of selection on the Website of RPSC, however, non-
mentioning of the same in the advertisement will not vitiate the
entire selection process.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in
subsequent advertisements, the condition of minimum cut-off
marks has been mentioned will not improve the case of the
petitioners as the information to that effect was already available
on the Website of the RPSC as mentioned in the advertisement
dated 22.10.2019.
In view of the discussion made above, this Court is not
inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. The writ petition is
therefore, devoid of force and the same is dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
53-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
