Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1464 (RAJ)

M. S. Rajpurohit v. The Rajasthan High Court

2006-05-03

DINESH MAHESHWARI, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment 1. This is a miscellaneous application in a disposed of writ petition viz. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2945/2004. The petition was dismissed on 21.09.2004 in the following terms: "We do not find any reason to keep the petition pending, as the subject matter of the petition can be considered by the High Court on its administrative side. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed." 2. The petitioners had filed writ petition seeking direction for amendment of Schedule III of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (for short the Rules) and Clause 7 of the advertisement notice dated 04.08.2003 in consonance with Rule 15 of the Rules, incorporating specific syllabus for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination to enable the candidates to prepare for the examination with reference to the syllabus. 3. On 04.08.2003 advertisement notice had been published in newspapers inviting applications for Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2003 in accordance with the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955. The notice mentioned that written examination will be held in Law Paper I and Paper II but the subjects or topics on which the candidates were to be examined were not specified-and in this background the petitioners came to this Court. 4. It may be stated here that Rule 14 of the Rules provides that a competitive examination shall be held for recruitment to the Service i.e., the Rajasthan Judicial Service. Rule 15 lays down that "the syllabus and the rules relating to the competitive examination shall be as in Schedule III". Schedule III refers to Law Paper I and Law Paper II, besides Language Paper I (Hindi Essay) and Language Paper II (English Essay), it does not mention the specific subjects/topics or syllabus with respect to which the examination is to be held. According to the petitioners, in the absence of details of the subjects etc. -either in the advertisement notice or in the Schedule the candidates cannot effectively prepare for the examination. They stated that a "vague and non-dimensional description of the subject" could jeopardise the whole exercise of selecting the candidates. Not only preparation for examination would be "impossible", success would depend on chance rather than on merit. -either in the advertisement notice or in the Schedule the candidates cannot effectively prepare for the examination. They stated that a "vague and non-dimensional description of the subject" could jeopardise the whole exercise of selecting the candidates. Not only preparation for examination would be "impossible", success would depend on chance rather than on merit. The petitioners referred to the Civil Service Examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and the Rajasthan Administrative Service Examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and stated that for these examinations the subjects/syllabus have been prescribed and they are known to the candidates. For recruitment to the Judicial Service also, in other State the subjects/syllabus have been mentioned in the respective recruitment rules. 5. The Division Bench, as seen above, took the view that the matter can be considered by the High Court on administrative side and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 6. In the present application it has been stated that on 111.2005 advertisement notice has been published for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2005 but again, without specifying the subjects etc. in Law Paper I or Paper II with reference to which the examination will be held. According to the petitioners observation that "the matter can be considered by the High Court on administrative side" in the order dated 21.09.2004 suggested that action would be taken by the High Court on the administrative side but as the advertisement is again in the same terms, and it is imperative that Schedule III is suitably amended. 7. The relevant part of the advertisement notice dated 111.2005 is as under: "The examination will be in the following subjects, each subject carrying the number of marks shown against each. S.No. Subject Paper Marks 1 Law Paper-I 100 2 Law Paper-II 100 3 Language (I) Paper-I Hindi essay 50 4 Language (II) Paper-II English essay 50 Law Paper-I is designed to test the practical knowledge of the candidates in civil law and procedure e.g. Drafting, pleading, framing issues and writing out Judgment s etc. in Civil Cases. Law Paper-II is designed to test the practical knowledge of the candidates in criminal law and procedure e.g. Framing charges and writing out Judgment s etc. in Criminal Cases." The advertisement is in accordance with Schedule III of the Rules. in Civil Cases. Law Paper-II is designed to test the practical knowledge of the candidates in criminal law and procedure e.g. Framing charges and writing out Judgment s etc. in Criminal Cases." The advertisement is in accordance with Schedule III of the Rules. In fact relevant part of Schedule III has been reproduced which would be evident from the following: "The examination will be in the following subjects, each subject carrying the number of marks shown against each. SUBJECTS MARKS 1. Law Paper I 100 2. Law Paper II 100 3. Language(i) Paper I Hindi Essay (ii) Paper II English Essay 50 50 4. Viva-Voce 35 Law Paper I is designed to test the practical knowledge of the candidate in Civil Law and Procedure e.g. Drafting, pleadings, framing issues and writing out Judgment s etc. in Civil Cases. Law paper II is designed to test the practical knowledge of the candidates in Criminal Law and Procedure e.g. framing charges and writing out Judgment s etc. in criminal cases." 8. Shri P.S. Bhati appearing for the petitioners produced syllabi for the Bihar Judicial Service Examination 2005, Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination, 2006 and Uttranchal Judicial Examination, 2005-06 and submitted that in most of the States specific syllabus has been mentioned in the recruitment rules and the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules should be suitably amended on the same pattern. According to the Counsel, unless examination is held on the basis of known syllabus the candidate cannot properly prepare for the examination and it may be difficult to select the best from amongst them. 9. While considering the submissions of the Counsel it is to be kept in mind that what is being argued is a miscellaneous application in a disposed of petition. The petition was dismissed though with an observation that the matter can be considered by the High Court on administrative side. Clearly, the Court was of the view that no direction can be issued for amendment of the Schedule. It is relevant to mention here that under proviso to Rule 15 of the Rules, the syllabus/Schedule III may be amended by the Rajpramukh (now, Governor) from time to time in consultation with the Public Service Commission and the High Court. Conduct of examination is an executive function and what should be the syllabus for the examination cannot be examined on judicial side. Conduct of examination is an executive function and what should be the syllabus for the examination cannot be examined on judicial side. The pattern of examination and the syllabus on the basis of which the examination will be held for recruitment to a particular service are matters to be decided by the body conducting examination for recruitment subject, of course, to any direction of the Government where recruitment is for Government Service. Consultation with the High Court is necessary in view of Article 235 of the Constitution since the recruitment is for the judicial service. The matter, therefore eminently falls under the executive function of the State Government, the High Court and the Public Service Commission. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioners do not say that the syllabus be specified by the High Court, they seek direction upon the respondents to specify the syllabus. The respondents were the Public Service Commission and the State of Rajasthan, besides the High Court. The point is whether such a direction should be issued. 10. It is true that Schedule III does not specify the subjects except to mention that the papers are designed to test the practical knowledge of the candidates in civil law and criminal law, and the procedure e.g. drafting, pleading, framing issues and writing Judgment s etc. But if the exact subject or branch of civil or criminal laws have not been specified in the Schedule III or the advertisement, that is so for all the candidates. It is to be kept in mind that the examination is not a qualifying examination but a competitive examination. Success of the candidate depends on the marks secured by him vis-a-vis other candidates. Candidates are to be chosen for interview on the basis of marks secured by them. Depending on the number of vacancies and the ratio for Viva Voce test, a merit list is required to be prepared on the basis of marks and the candidates are accordingly called. If the syllabus is vague and the subjects/branch are not specified, the examination being the same, for all the candidates, the petitioners cannot make any grievance. Examinations have been held in the past on the basis of same recruitment rules and syllabus. Only a handful of candidates have made grievance. If the syllabus is vague and the subjects/branch are not specified, the examination being the same, for all the candidates, the petitioners cannot make any grievance. Examinations have been held in the past on the basis of same recruitment rules and syllabus. Only a handful of candidates have made grievance. As is some times said, it is only in adverse situations that one can show his mettle, and talent can be identified. If without knowing the specific subject/branches of law the candidates at large took the examination, and successful candidates outclassed others in the past, in the previous examinations, no case apparently is made out for any direction on judicial side. 11. All said and done, the matter as to whether Schedule III requires any amendment or not may be considered by the State Government in consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission as provided in proviso to Rule 15 to the recruitment Rules. 12. We find no ground to pass any order different from the order dated 21.09.2004. The miscellaneous application accordingly is rejected but with observation hereinabove.