Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rampal vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission, ... on 24 September, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:42971]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14592/2021

Rampal S/o Mangaram, Aged About 50 Years, Plot No.5 Kh
No.83/1, Jamna Nagar, Ramjan Ji Ka Hatha, Banar Road,
Nandari, Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Rajasthan   Public      Service       Commission,        Ajmer,   Ajmer
         Through The Secretary.
2.       The Secretary, Medical And Health Services Department,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Devendra Deelu
                                Mr. Nikhil Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Tarun Joshi for
                                Mr. Vikram Singh



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

24/09/2025

1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad

idem that the subject matter in the present writ petition is

squarely covered by the order passed by the Division Bench of this

Court on 29.08.2025 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.241/2023

titled as 'Ravi Prakash Dhaka Vs. Rajasthan Public Service

Commissioner'.

2. The aforesaid order dated 29.08.2025 reads as follows:

"1. The appeal assails the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 05.01.2023, whereby, the appellant's claim for consideration for appointment on the post of Physiotherapist in the quota of Ex-serviceman pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.03.2018 was rejected.

(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 05:14:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42971] (2 of 5) [CW-14592/2021]

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the advertisement was issued on 29.03.2018 for 28 posts of Physiotherapist where 3 posts were earmarked for Ex- serviceman. On 24.09.2021 merit list was published wherein only 1 candidate to Ex-serviceman quota was appointed as a Physiotherapist and 2 posts in said category remained vacant. The claim of the appellant is that he was not considered in the said category.

3. The respondent in its reply before the learned Single Judge pointed out that a criteria has been laid down by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, "RPSC") for considering the minimum qualifying marks for the purpose of selection and as per the said minimum qualifying marks, a candidate who scores at least 50 marks out of 100 marks would be found suitable for the post. It is stated and noticed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant scored only 42.02 marks (9.02 marks screening test weightage + 20 marks in academics and 13 marks in interview),and thus he was not found suitable for the post. The RPSC further submits that only 1 candidate could clear the benchmark of 50,the other two posts were for Ex-serviceman had been filled from the open category. The appellant submits that the criteria as adopted by the RPSC has had a change in the Rules which has been made after the game has already started and submits that in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. and Anr.: Civil Appeal No.1313/2008 decided on 15.02.2008, it was not open to lay down the Rules of minimum marks after the advertisement had already been issued. The judgment passed inthe case of K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. and Anr (supra) was upheld and followed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court upon reference in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors.: 2024 INSC 847.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the RPSC has placed before us, the time to time decisions taken by the RPSC. He submits that as per the first decision dated

(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 05:14:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42971] (3 of 5) [CW-14592/2021]

09.04.1980/10.04.1980, the RPSC had declared that candidates who get less than 50% marks will be considered unsuitable. The said criteria continued till the commission's notification was issued on 17.06.2015, wherein decision was taken that in direct recruitment post, there may be relaxation of 5% with respect to the disabled category. In 2019 again, the RPSC continued with the said process and it was decided by the RPSC to treat candidates unsuitable, who have scored less than 50 marks. The cases where there has been screening test, academics marks and interview, thereto as per the criteria of selection, candidates who scored minimum 50% marks would not have been selected. In 2020, the criteria was again examined and reiterated laying down the minimum qualifying marks to be 50 marks for General and OBC while 45 marks were for SC, ST and Physically Handicapped.

5. In view thereto, learned counsel appearing for the RPSC submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference.

6. We have carefully considered the submission.

7. Admittedly, the appellant has scored 42.02 marks, the cut-off for the purpose of participation has been put to 50 marks and therefore, although, the appellant is from Ex-serviceman category and only 1 person had been appointed against the said category, on account of the appellant having not scored 50 marks, he has been ousted. We have carefully considered the aspects, we noticed that so for as RPSC is concerned, it has nowhere laid down the minimum qualifying marks for candidates coming from Ex-serviceman category. The criteria as passed over to us and noticed above has been only with respect to other categories namely SC, ST and Specially abled, General and OBC. On account of non-consideration of appellant's candidature, two posts of Ex-serviceman were left vacant and were filled by General category persons, meaning thereby candidates who were available had been left out for consideration by adopting a criteria which was not existing or to be taken into consideration

(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 05:14:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42971] (4 of 5) [CW-14592/2021]

for Ex-serviceman. While we do not find it to be a case to be interpreted on the ground of the change of Rule as the Rule has been consistent with the RPSC and it is an internal noting, but in the present circumstances where examination are required to be conducted in a fair transparent manner, any minimum criteria for selection must be made available to the candidates, it is not open for an examining body to not inform the candidates appearing for the exam of the minimum passing marks. Such an approach leaves candidates under confusion and also gives room to arbitrariness. In the present case, we find that the appellant who appeared in the screening test as well as interview scored marks and there was no other candidate available in Ex-serviceman category who was having higher marks and was left out. On the other hand the RPSC proceeded not to offer him appointment and shifted the post to General Category person resulting in the very purpose of reservation of Ex-serviceman being rendered useless and otiose. We do not conform to such an approach adopted by the RPSC and hold its action illegal and unjustified. We accordingly, set aside the judgment dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge and hold the appellant entitled to be considered for appointment in terms of his marks obtained for the post of Physiotherapist against the post earmarked for Ex- serviceman category. The action of the RPSC in depriving him of his due selection against the post earmarked for candidates like him alone, and shifting the said post to other category on the ground that there is no eligible person available is found to be unjustified.

8. We accordingly direct the appellant's candidature to be considered for appointment against the Ex-serviceman post. The RPSC shall now revise the result and declare the candidature of the appellant in accordance with our observation as above and sent his name for recommendation for appointment. The exercise shall be done within a period of two months henceforth, the appeal stands allowed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."

(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 05:14:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42971] (5 of 5) [CW-14592/2021]

3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in same

terms as in Ravi Prakash Dhaka (supra).

4. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 142-PoonamS/-

(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 05:14:20 PM)