Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1344 (RAJ)

Mohit Dwivedi v. R. P. S. C.

2010-08-02

DINESH MAHESHWARI, JAGDISH BHALLA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners, who had been the candidates in the Rajasthan Judicial Service-2008 examination, have filed this writ petition questioning the action of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission ('RPSC') in issuing revised list dated 20.07.2010 (Annex.3) pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16869/2010 and the order dated 10.05.2010 as passed by a Division bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 825/2010 Sharwan Kumar v. RPSC and Ors. and other connected cases . 2. The grievance of the petitioners essentially is to the effect that when this Court quashed and set aside the select list prepared earlier and directions were issued to proceed further on the basis of raw marks (actual marks) obtained by the candidates in the written examination and to add the marks obtained in interview, the RPSC could not have retained the earlier marks obtained in the interview by the candidates and could not have deprived the petitioners of a chance to appear in the interview again. 3. In order to appreciate the submissions sought to be made, a brief reference to the background is necessary. On 27.08.2008, the applications were invited for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the Rajasthan Judicial Services; and written examination were held on 07/08.02.2009. After declaration of the result of written examination, the RPSC proceeded to conduct the interviews but then, the merit list was prepared while introducing 'scaling' system in alteration of the actual marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination. Some of the candidates who were not declared qualified for the interview, put a challenge to the scaling system so employed by the RPSC by filing different writ petitions. On 18.02.2010, a Division Bench of this Court, with reference to the earlier decision of this Court dated 27.10.2009 in relation to the similar nature controversy as involved in the case of Sarita Naushad v. RPSC and Ors. relating to the same RJS examination for the year 2005, directed the RPSC not to declare the result of interviews that were going on pursuant to the result of the written examination that was declared while applying the scaling system. relating to the same RJS examination for the year 2005, directed the RPSC not to declare the result of interviews that were going on pursuant to the result of the written examination that was declared while applying the scaling system. Against this interim order, the RPSC preferred a petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 6569/2010 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the interim stay order over the impugned order dated 18.02.2010. Pursuant to the interim order so passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the RPSC proceeded to declare the result and made the consequential recommendations. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the appeals filed against the order passed in Sarita Naushad's case (supra) and the appeals were disposed of while directing the RPSC to conduct interviews of some of the candidates on the basis of raw marks. Any further dilatation on the orders relating to Sarita Naushad's case does not appear necessary; and appropriate it is to revert to the litigation concerning the examination for the year 2008. 4. The SLP pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was withdrawn on 05.05.2010 and thereafter, the matters pending in this Court relating to the examination of the year 2008 were taken up for consideration by the Division Bench in its order dated 10.05.2010. The Hon'ble Division Bench, with reference to the position obtainable with the decision in Sarita Naushad's case having attained finality and adopting of scaling system for recruitment to Judicial Services having been disapproved, held that the scaling system so adopted by the RPSC in the examination for the year 2008 was illegal and the result declared on this basis was also declared null and void. The Hon'ble Division in its order dated 10.05.2010 said, With regard to other writ petitions, in which, selections of Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2008 are under challenge, while following the adjudication made by the Hon'ble apex Court in Sanjay Singh's case as well as order dated 05.05.2010 and verdict given by the Division Bench of this Court in Sarita Naushad's case, all these writ petitions are allowed. Scaling system adopted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2008 is hereby declared illegal and unconstitutional. Scaling system adopted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2008 is hereby declared illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently, the result declared on the basis of adopting the scaling system during pendency of these writ petitions for Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2008 and recommendations made in pursuance of result so declared to the State Government for appointment are hereby declared null and void and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to prepare fresh merit/select list while taking into consideration the raw marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and, while proceeding on the basis of raw marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination, further, add marks obtained in the interview. After preparation of fresh merit/select list, final result may be declared and names of so selected candidates may be recommended to the State Government for appointment. This exercise shall be completed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 5. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 16869/2010 which was dismissed on 09.07.2010. Hence, the order dated 10.05.2010 has attained finality. 6. Pursuant to the directions aforesaid, the RPSC has taken up firstly, the exercise of preparation of fresh merit list and has declared the same on 20.07.2010 (Annex.3). The RPSC has declared 240 candidates eligible for interview on the basis of raw marks but then, has pointed out that 177 of such candidates, who have already been interviewed, were not being called for interview over again. The RPSC has specified 63 candidates to be called for interview now on the basis of revised merit list and has also included in these interviews 4 such candidates who stand in merit on the basis of raw marks and who were called earlier for interview but remained absent. The RPSC has further specified 80 such candidates who were earlier included in the interview on the basis of scaled marks but were not being included in the final selection process for not standing in merit on the basis of raw marks. Consequent to this exercise, the RPSC has issued the programme for interviews commencing today, i.e., 02.08.2010. 7. The RPSC has further specified 80 such candidates who were earlier included in the interview on the basis of scaled marks but were not being included in the final selection process for not standing in merit on the basis of raw marks. Consequent to this exercise, the RPSC has issued the programme for interviews commencing today, i.e., 02.08.2010. 7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned list dated 20.07.2010 is wholly illegal and contrary to the scheme of examination and even contrary to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its letter and spirit. The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that when the Division Bench in its judgment dated 10.05.2010 held that the result declared by adopting scaling system was null and void and the RPSC was directed to prepare a fresh merit list on the basis of raw marks, the RPSC was under an obligation only to prepare a fresh list on the basis of raw marks and thereafter to conduct the interviews of all the eligible candidates; and the RPSC has wrongly issued directions only to call 63 candidates for interviews. This, according to the learned Counsel, is contrary to the directions of the Division Bench. It is also submitted that the action of the RPSC has led to a truncated process of selection and the entire scheme of a competitive examination is frustrated; and the requirements of objectivity, transparency and equal opportunities are all prejudiced. The learned Counsel has also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Anamica Mishra and Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Ors., JT 1989 (4) SC 410 to submit that fresh interviews of all the eligible candidates ought to have been conducted. 8. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel, we are unable to find even a wee bit of force in this petition. 9. The fact of the matter remains that the RPSC had earlier conducted interviews of about 240 candidates and the petitioners too appeared in the said interviews. The process of selection as carried out earlier has met its disapproval so far the preparation of merit list on the basis of scaled marks was concerned and hence, the earlier result has been declared null and void. The process of selection as carried out earlier has met its disapproval so far the preparation of merit list on the basis of scaled marks was concerned and hence, the earlier result has been declared null and void. Now, on the basis of and pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench of this Court, the RPSC is obliged to take up the preparation of merit list/select list over again. The RPSC, in the first place, has declared merit list of 240 candidates on the basis of raw marks. However, 177 of such candidates who now stand in the revised list are such who have already been interviewed. In the given situation, the RPSC has consciously chosen to invite only such candidates for interviews who stand in the revised merit list but had not been interviewed earlier. In the ordinary course, of course, the RPSC would not have declared the marks obtained by the candidates invited for interviews but in the peculiar circumstances pertaining to these selections where the result has indeed been declared before passing the final order by the Court; and pursuant to the order now passed, the merit list was required to be re-framed on the basis of raw marks, the availability of declared marks of the candidates is a peculiar situation inevitable and unavoidable. It is noticed that consciously taking the fact situation into account, the Division Bench of this Court though pronounced that the earlier declaration of result and the recommendations made pursuant thereto was null and void but then, directed preparation of a fresh "merit/select list" and then to add the marks obtained in the interview; but the RPSC was not directed to carry out the exercise of interview of all the candidates again. 10. The directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 10.05.2010 in their practical effect could only have been implemented in the manner now carried out by the RPSC and we are unable to find anything of illegality therein. It does not appear if the RPSC has flouted or violated the directions of this Court in the order dated 10.05.2010. 11. The reference to Kumari Anamica Mishra's case (supra) does not appear apposite. It does not appear if the RPSC has flouted or violated the directions of this Court in the order dated 10.05.2010. 11. The reference to Kumari Anamica Mishra's case (supra) does not appear apposite. In the said case, the obtainable position was that after the written examination in the concerned selections, due to improper feeding into the computer, some of the candidates who had better performance in the written examination were not called for interviews and the candidates securing lesser marks in the written examination were called for interviews and were selected too. After the facts were established in an inquiry, the concerned PSC decided to cancel the entire examination and asked for re-holding. The High Court upheld the action of the PSC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that when no defect was pointed out in regard to the written examination and the sole objection was confined to exclusion of a group of successful candidates in the written examination from the interview, there was no justification for cancelling the written examination; and the situation could have been appropriately met by asking for a fresh interview of all the eligible candidates. The directions aforesaid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were essentially to meet the exigencies of a particular situation but in the present matter, there stands operating a concluded decision of this Court wherein the Division Bench consciously directed preparation of fresh merit/select list and to add the marks obtained in the interview. Obviously, in the face of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court wherein the Division Bench consciously omitted to direct holding of the interview of all the candidates, the RPSC could not have proceeded with fresh interviews all over again. In the given set of facts and circumstances, we see no reason where for the RPSC would have conducted the interviews even in relation to those candidates who had already been interviewed. Interviews in relation to only the candidates now falling in the merit list, in our view, remain unexceptionable. 12. As a result of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******