Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1513 (RAJ)

Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-03

AMITAVA ROY, VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Ms.Nidhi Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue formal notice. 3. The pleaded version of the petitioner, in short, is that in response to the advertisement for recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service, the petitioner being eligible in terms thereof, offered his candidature whereafter, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') allowed him to participate in the related written examination conducted from 21.3.2013 to 24.3.2013. The petitioner was issued the admit card with Roll No.200200 and he duly took the said examination. The results were declared on 14.6.2013, which disclosed that he was unsuccessful. 4. He was declared to have failed in the examination for not having been able to secure minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the relevant Rules. According to the petitioner, he has been grossly underevaluated, as he had performed very well in the examination. 5. Thus, being aggrieved, he submitted application with the Commission for providing his question booklets, answer booklets and answer keys in all the four papers and to permit inspection thereof, so as to enable him to make correct assessment of his performance and evaluation thereof. His grievance is that his request has not been acceded to. The petitioner thus seek judicial intervention for direction to the respondents to provide him question booklets, answer booklets and answer-keys in all four papers and/or permit her to inspect the answer-sheets in all the subjects. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to buttress his arguments, has placed reliance on the order dated 26.8.2013 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10419/2013 (Priyanka Sharma v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr.) . 6. We have duly considered the pleaded averments and the submissions in endorsement thereof. 7. In terms of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (as amended upto 2012), the process for recruitment to the post of Judicial Magistrate & Civil Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service is based on the performance of the candidates in the competitive examination as prescribed thereby and is complete only on appointments being made. 7. In terms of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (as amended upto 2012), the process for recruitment to the post of Judicial Magistrate & Civil Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service is based on the performance of the candidates in the competitive examination as prescribed thereby and is complete only on appointments being made. A candidate successful in the preliminary examination only qualifies to participate in the main examination, and only those who are successful in the latter test, are called for the interview, subject to their performance and the ceiling stipulated. The petitioner admittedly, could not pass the RJS main examination. Except contending that he is not satisfied with the marks awarded to him, he has not mentioned any other persuasive reason to justify his request for being furnished with his answer scripts. We have perused the reply given by the Commission to the application filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497 , had observed, in the context of the Right to Information Act, 2005, that revelation of information thereunder should not be in conflict with other public interests, which include efficient operation of the Government, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidential and sensitive information. 9. On a perusal of the order dated 26.8.2013 passed in Priyanka Sharma v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr. (supra), we find that the direction contained therein to the respondent-Commission to supply copy of the answer-sheet/OMR sheet of the petitioner was issued by recording that it (Commission) had no objection thereto. No proposition of law of uniform application has been laid down by that order. As such, this order, in our view, does not advance the case of the petitioner. 10. On a cumulative consideration of all above, we are not inclined to accede to the reliefs prayed for. This notwithstanding, it would be open for the petitioner, if so advised, to avail his alternative remedy under the Act of 2005. 11. The petition therefore, lacks in merit and is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******