Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2050 (RAJ)

Raju Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2015-12-09

AJIT SINGH, ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. The objections pointed out by the office are waived. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 29.7.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 14.01.2013 passed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission ('RPSC') debarring the appellant from participating in future examination and selection process of RPSC, was dismissed. 2. The appellant, appeared in Sub-Inspector of Police Joint Competitive Examination, 2010 and during the course of examination on 25.5.2011, the appellant was caught using mobile blue-tooth for cheating. The appellant was granted opportunity of hearing, wherein the appellant accepted his guilt as in his reply it was indicated that he would not repeat the mistake in future. The RPSC finding the act of the appellant of serious nature, cancelled the result of the examination, where the appellant had appeared and debarred him from all the future examinations to be held by the RPSC. The representation made by the appellant seeking relaxation was also rejected. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that the appellant was rightly debarred by the RPSC from participating in all future examination/selection, the petition was delayed and the ban imposed cannot be termed as harsh and unjust looking to the misconduct alleged and consequently dismissed the petition. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the RPSC was not justified in debarring the appellant from participating in all future examinations/selections. 6. It was submitted that the RPSC does not have the power to debar a candidate for all times to come in examination and therefore, the order passed by the RPSC and the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 7. It was further submitted that looking to the age of the appellant, a sympathetic view needs to be taken in overall facts and circumstances of the case. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material placed on record. 9. The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant regarding lack of power in RPSC to debar a student from all future examinations is baseless. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material placed on record. 9. The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant regarding lack of power in RPSC to debar a student from all future examinations is baseless. Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 ('the Rules'), under which the examinations were being held by the RPSC, reads as under:- "15. Employment of Irregular or Improper Means.- A candidate who is or has been declared by the Recruitment Board/Commission or the Appointing Authority guilty of impersonation or of submitting fabricated documents, which have been tempered with or suppressing material information or of using or attempting to use unfair means in the examination or interview or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or interview may, in addition to rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution be debarred either permanently or for a specified period:- (a) by the Recruitment Board/Commission or the Appointing Authority for admission to any examination or appearance at any interview to be held under the provisions of these Rules, and (b) by Government from employment under the Government." 10. A bare look at the above provision clearly reveals that a candidate, who resorts to irregular or improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or interview may, in addition to rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution can be debarred either permanently or for a specified period by the recruitment board/commission for admission to any examination and therefore, it cannot be said that the RPSC has no power to pass the order impugned. 11. So far as the plea regarding the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, admittedly the petitioner was apprehended using mobile blue-tooth device for cheating. The examination, for which the appellant appeared, was for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, a disciplined force and the very fact that he was caught using mobile blue-tooth device necessarily means that the appellant in connivance with someone else was involved in cheating and question paper was made available outside the examination centre. 12. The examination, for which the appellant appeared, was for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, a disciplined force and the very fact that he was caught using mobile blue-tooth device necessarily means that the appellant in connivance with someone else was involved in cheating and question paper was made available outside the examination centre. 12. Looking to the nature of the post, for which the examination was being held and the high tech modus applied by the appellant, it cannot be said that the action of the appellant has been innocent and/or based on over anxiety to get good marks. 13. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed by the RPSC was too harsh in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. In view of the above discussion, no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, and there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******