Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1713 (RAJ)

KULDEEP JAIMAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019-05-30

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, who rejected the writ petition preferred by him. The appellants complaint was that in the RAS Examination, 2018, which he attempted as a 100% visually impaired candidate, as he was not provided with a scribe, he could not attempt the answer scripts in the manner that he wished. He alleged that in the public examination held by the RPSC (which was of objective type containing 150 questions with answer options), the scribe provided was at the venue and that familiarity of the scribe with the manner of speech, resulted in an outcome adverse to him. 2. The RPSC held the examination for selection to RAS on 05.08.2018. The appellant represented to the RPSC/State Government, alleging that contrary to the provisions of the circular and guidelines, he was not made to interact with scribe at least 24 hours before the test. The appellant also relies upon a letter dated 02.02.2019, addressed by the Superintendent of the venue where the examination was held, which negated his complaint and stated that there was no provision enabling interaction between the scribe and the candidate 24 hours before the date of the test. 3. It is argued, on the strength of the circular issued by the Central Government on 26.02.2013 (Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Department of Disability Affairs) and the judgment of this Court in Kuldeep Jaiman v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4192/2017, dated 24.03.2017), that not providing scribe who could be effective and also not facilitating interaction between the scribe and the candidate, in the manner prescribed by the circular i.e. 24 hours before the test, is arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel for the RPSC contended that appeal- as well as the petition involve highly contested and disputed questions of fact which are best left for adjudication elsewhere. He urged that this Court should not disturb the order of the Single Judge, who declined to interfere in writ proceedings, arguing that there is no denial of the fact that on the date of the test, the appellant was in fact provided a scribe. The allegation that the scribe could not understand what the candidate spoke, or that the candidate was not made to interact, was not ever raised contemporaneously when the appellant in fact took the test. The allegation that the scribe could not understand what the candidate spoke, or that the candidate was not made to interact, was not ever raised contemporaneously when the appellant in fact took the test. It is also argued that there is no specific provision requiring the candidate to interact with the scribe in advance. 5. The circular of 26.02.2013 (issued by the Central Government), which the appellant relies upon, inter alia, states as follows:- "IV. The candidate should have the discretion of opting for his own scribe/reader/lab assistant or request the Examination Body for the same. The examining body may also identify the scribe/ reader/ lab assistant to make panels at the District/Division/ State level as per the requirements of the examination. In such instances the candidates should be allowed to meet the scribe a day before the examination so that the candidates get a chance to check and verify whether the scribe is suitable or not." In interpreting this circular, in the context of a similar examination, this Court in Kuldeep Jaiman (supra) i.e. the present appellant in a past examination, held as follows:- "Counsel appearing for the petitioner, thus, submits that the petitioner is entitled to opt for scribe of his own choice. Counsel further submits that in pursuance of the Circular dated 26.02.2013 (Annexure7) issued by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Department of Disability Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, the Union Public Service Commission had permitted the petitioner vide Annexure-6 dated 27.02.2017 to have scribe of his own choice. Counsel contends that if the Union Public Service Commission can permit the petitioner to have scribe of his own choice, respondent-Commission cannot deny the same facility to the petitioner. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2- Commission has submitted that scribe to be opted by the petitioner should have passed one class lower than minimum qualification required for undertaking the examination. To this argument advanced by counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2- Commission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has no objection. For the present examination, minimum qualification prescribed is Graduate. Therefore, accepting the contention made by Mr. Baig, ld. counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2- Commission, it is, hereby, ordered that the petitioner shall be permitted to have the scribe of his own choice, who is under Graduate. As further prayed by Mr. Baig, ld. For the present examination, minimum qualification prescribed is Graduate. Therefore, accepting the contention made by Mr. Baig, ld. counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2- Commission, it is, hereby, ordered that the petitioner shall be permitted to have the scribe of his own choice, who is under Graduate. As further prayed by Mr. Baig, ld. counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2-Commission, respondent-Commission is permitted to depute a special invigilator to oversee that what is dictated and spoken by the petitioner, same is scribed by the person provided to petitioner as an aid. With the directions issued herein above, present petition, as well as stay application, filed therewith, stand disposed of." 6. In the present case, what is apparent from the record is that immediately after the test on 06.08.2018 (the test in fact took place on 05.08.2018), the appellant represented specifically stating that he was not allowed to interact with the scribe a day prior to the examination. 7. We notice, at the outset, that the previous judgment of this Court in Kuldeep Jaiman (supra), was rendered much before the examination- in fact the judgment was delivered on 24.03.2017. In these circumstances, the response of the State and the RPSC that no provision existed to enable interaction between the scribe and the candidate, as alleged by the appellant, is insubstantial and meritless. The RPSC was aware of the judgment of this Court which was clearly premised upon denial of an opportunity of the kind, which was sought in these proceedings. On this ground alone, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant/petitioner- is correct when he alleges that absence of any interaction before examination procedure resulted in his poor performance. Viewed pragmatically, the manner in which a candidate comprehends the question would depend upon how it is read out to him by the scribe and the manner in which he attempts test would depend upon how the scribe comprehends the candidate by way of speaking. Thus, to provide a full and fair opportunity, an interaction between the two is absolutely necessary- as is provisioned for in para IV of the circular dated 26.02.2013. That it was not in fact extended or facilitated in the present case, in the opinion of this Court, has resulted in arbitrariness. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. Thus, to provide a full and fair opportunity, an interaction between the two is absolutely necessary- as is provisioned for in para IV of the circular dated 26.02.2013. That it was not in fact extended or facilitated in the present case, in the opinion of this Court, has resulted in arbitrariness. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The RPSC is directed to provide the appellant, a scribe(who is undergraduate) of his choice and ensure that meaningful interaction takes place at least 24 hours before the examination, between such scribe and him (the appellant) which is now scheduled on 25.06.2019. 9. The appeal is allowed in above terms. All pending applications stand disposed of.