Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 591 (RAJ)

Vijay Kumari v. State of Rajasthan

2010-03-15

PRAKASH TATIA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.The respondents advertised the vacancies in the police department for the post of police constable for men and women including for the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. The reservation for the woman candidates for different categories was also fixed at 30% of the total vacancies. The petitioner applied for the said post in the category of other backward class. The petitioner passed the written examination, in which the petitioner secured 21.75 marks out of 50 marks. In physical efficiency test, the petitioner secured 20 marks out of 20 marks, however, she has been awarded only two marks out of 10 in the interview, therefore, she was declared not selected candidate. 2. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court by filing this writ petition with the plea that she has wrongly been denied appointment on the post in question. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the candidate, who secured less marks than the petitioner, has been given appointment as she succeeded in the interview. It is also submitted that two marks awarded to the petitioner, cannot be justified. As per standing order dated 03.04.2008 a candidate is required to be given at least pass marks in the interview if the candidate knows language Hindi written in 'Devnagri' script and having knowledge of Rajasthani culture. Copy of standing order dated 03rd of April 2008 is Annex-R/1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner has already passed the written test in Hindi medium conducted by the respondents, wherein the papers were of general knowledge, general science and current affairs as well as consisting of subjects of history, culture, arts, geography etc. with particular reference to Rajasthani. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in S.B.C.W.P No. 7693/2008, (Rajwanti v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) dated 18.11.2008 , wherein for the same post, the candidate who secured two marks out of 10 marks in interview which were less than 36% in interview, her writ petition was dismissed. 5. I considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It appears that the respondents themselves did not bring to the notice of the Bench in the case of Rajwanti (supra) that there is a standing order dated 03rd of April 2008. 5. I considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It appears that the respondents themselves did not bring to the notice of the Bench in the case of Rajwanti (supra) that there is a standing order dated 03rd of April 2008. However, in the present case, the respondents have placed on record the standing order dated 03.04.2008 along with the reply, wherein for written test topics/subjects have been mentioned, which include the questions relating to general knowledge, general science, current affairs and questions relating to culture, arts, geography with particular reference to Rajasthani. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner is a student of Hindi medium, the subject with reference to Rajasthani have already been answered by the petitioner in the written examination and she has secured 42.50% marks in the written test. As per the standing order dated 03.04.2008, a candidate having working knowledge of Hindi written in 'Devnagri' scrip and knowledge of Rajasthani culture is required to be awarded pass marks in the interview. 7. In that fact situation, awarding two marks to the petitioner cannot be justified and the respondents have not disputed the marks obtained by the petitioner in written test on subject of Hindi and Devnagri script with reference to Rajasthani culture in their reply. The respondents cannot rely upon the abstract rule that a candidate who secured less marks in interview than minimum prescribed marks then the candidate cannot be given appointment. Furthermore, said is not the question relevant in this petition but question is that whether the marks awarded to the petitioner in the interview have been awarded illegally, when the petitioner successfully has established that as per the standing order passed by the State Government itself, she ought to have been awarded passing marks in the interview. 8. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. It is held that awarding only two marks to the petitioner in the interview was wrong and the petitioner ought to have been awarded minimum pass marks in the interview in view of standing order dated 03.04.2008. The petitioner was entitled to get minimum pass marks in the interview. It is held that awarding only two marks to the petitioner in the interview was wrong and the petitioner ought to have been awarded minimum pass marks in the interview in view of standing order dated 03.04.2008. The petitioner was entitled to get minimum pass marks in the interview. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner's marks in interview as the minimum pass marks and consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of constable, as referred above and accord her appointment, if she fulfils all other conditions for the appointment. The process be completed within a period of two months from today.Writ Petition Allowed. *******