2009 Supreme(Raj) 2398
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Prem Shankerasopa, Guman Singh, JJ.
Sarita Noushad and etc. etc. - Appellant
Versus
R.P.S.C. and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3942, 3726, 3814, 4109, 4115, 4167 and etc. of 2007.
Decided On : 27-10-2009
For the Petitioners:Mr. Asgar Ali Khan, Mr.R.K. Mathur, Mr. S.P. Sharma, Mr. Rajendra Soni, Mr. Vigyan Shah, Ms. Shikha Parnami on behalf of Mr. J.P. Goyal, Mr. Param Pawan, Mr. G.S. Fouzdar, Mr.Shishupal Singh, Mr. Kapil Gupta, Mr. Rajeev Surana and Mr. Bhaskar Dagar, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for the RPSC Mr. Ashok Gaur, for the Raj. High Court.
Headnote:
(a) Constitution of India, Art. 234 and 309 – Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, Rule 15, Schedule 3 – The matter relates to the recruitment in the Rajasthan Judicial Services – for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – it was held that the said recruitment examination is being conducted in accordance with the Rules prescribed under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 – Thus as per Sch. 3 of the said rules Public Service Commission has no discretion to prescribe any scaling formula for the purpose concerning the recruitment to the said posts.
(b) Constitution of India, Art. 234 and 309 – Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, Rules 15 and 19 Schedule 3 – In the matter of Recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 – it was held that in case there is no provision prescribed under Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 relating to the scaling formula for the recruitment of the said posts – the scaling formula as applied by public service commission cannot be applied to the Rajasthan Judicial Service recruitments merely upon the recommendations of Committee and without any observance or compliance of the procedure laid down Art. 234 read with proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India.
(c) Constitution of India, Art. 234 and 309 – Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, Rule 15 and Schedule 3 – The matter relates to the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 – the method of scaling of marks for the selection of candidates was held to be violative of Art. 14 and 16 of Constitution as it treated un equals as equals – it led to arbitrary and irrational changes in the marks of already selected and appointed candidates – hence to meet the ends of justice the petitioners case was directed to be reconsidered for the future vacancies – However the decision was not retrospective in nature and the High court refused to disturb appointments of already made of persons who are working for the past more than one and a half year.
JUDGMENT
1. - Since common questions of facts and law of applying the scaling formula while awarding the marks in written examination of Rajasthan Judicial Service, 2005 (RJS, 2005) are involved in the matter, all the cases were heard together and are being decided together by this common judgment.
2. The facts of CWP No.3942/2007 Sarita Noushad v.Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others are taken as the leading facts.
3. On 19.11.2005, 85 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RJS Rules, 1955') for general as well as reserved category were advertised which was referred as 'RJS Examination,2005'. The last date for submission of the application forms was 9.1.2006 and the details of the categories of the posts, as per the requisition, are as under: | S.No | GENERAL | S.C. | S.T. | OBC | TOTAL |
|
| MEN | WOMEN | MEN | WOMEN | MEN | WOMEN | MEN | WOMEN |
|
| 1 |
| 09 | 02 | 11 | 05 |
|
|
| 27 |
| 2 | 24 | 06 | 08 | 01 | 06 | 01 | 10 | 02 | 58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TOTAL | 85 |
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) received 26,500 application forms including the application forms of the petitioners. Out of the 26,500 applicants, 12,576 applicants appeared in the written examination and after scaling, 244 candidates were called for interview and subsequently, 78+9, in all 87, candidates have been selected and appointed.
5. The interviews were held in the month of June, 2007 and the writ petition was filed by Sarita Noushad on 19.5.2007 challenging the adoption of scaling formula in R.J.S. and further seeking direction to call her for interview on the basis of actual marks 176' awarded to her out of 300 marks which were scaled down to 167', with the further relief of preparing fresh merit list. Interim relief was also sought for appearing in the interview.
6. The Division Bench of this Court on 1.6.2007 was not inclined to grant any interim relief to the petitioner while considering the fact that Sarita Noushad was one of the women candidates for two seats reserved for women in Other Backward Class category and in all, six women OBC candidates, who had secured more marks than 168' have been called for interview and further, for the reasons indicated in the interim order dated 31.5.2007 passed in another aforesaid CWP No.3726/2007 Himanshu Agrawal and others v. R.P.S.C. and another whereby interim relief was denied.
7. Against the aforesaid interim order dated 1.6.2007 passed in the writ petition filed by Sarita Noushad, SLP(C) No.10539/2007 was filed and the same was disposed of on 12.12.2008 along with another SLP(C) No.10631/2007 and it was directed that any further appointment made would be subject to the result of the writ petitions. By the same order dated 12.12.2008, Writ Petition (C) No.183/2008 and 186/2008 were allowed to be withdrawn by the counsel to move to the High Court for which permission was granted by the Supreme court.
8. It is stated in the writ petition that the scaling formula adopted by the RPSC is not applicable to the RJS Rules, 1955 wherein the scheme of examination is specifically prescribed in Schedule-III appended thereto and referred in Rule 15 of the RJS Rules, 1955. According to Schedule-III, a candidate is required to obtain 35 percent marks in each of the law papers and 40 percent marks in the aggregate, to be called for interview. Further, as per the said Schedule-III, there are two law papers - Paper-I and Paper-II carrying 100 marks each; the Language(i) Paper I Hindi Essary carries 50 marks and Language(ii) Paper-II English Essay carries 50 marks and for Viva Voce 35 marks are provided. Thus, for the written examination 300 marks and for viva voce 35 marks are provided. It is further stated in the writ petition that a candidate who failed to obtain minimum of 45 percent marks in the aggregate, both of writt
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
