1990 Supreme(Raj) 577
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Inder Sen Israni, J.
Rajandar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Raj. and ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 299 of 1990 along with 57 similar writ petitions.
Decided On : 01-08-1990
The requirement to state two Districts or Departments in the application form for appointment, as per Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957, is mandatory and cannot be deviated from by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN SUBORDINATE OFFICES MINISTERIAL STAFF RULES, 1957 - RULE 21 - MANDATORY REQUIREMENT TO STATE TWO DISTRICTS OR DEPARTMENTS IN APPLICATION FORM FOR APPOINTMENT - DEVIATION FROM RULE - APPOINTMENTS MADE WITHOUT COMPLIANCE - QUASHING OF APPOINTMENTS AND DIRECTING APPOINTMENT OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the selection and appointments made for the post of Lower Division Clerks in Subordinate Offices, Rajasthan Secretariat & RPSC, alleging non-compliance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (Rules, 1957). The advertisement issued by RPSC required candidates to mention only one District for appointment, contrary to Rule 21, which mandated stating two Districts or Departments in the application form.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the RPSC was legally bound to conduct the examination in accordance with the Rules, 1957, and as required by the proviso to amended Rule 21, RPSC should have asked the candidates to give a choice of two Districts or Departments in which they wanted to be appointed. The Court found that the deviation from Rule 21 resulted in the infringement of the legal and legitimate rights of the petitioners and marred their chances of selection and appointment.
Issues: 1. Whether the RPSC was required to ask candidates to give a choice of two Districts or Departments in the application form for appointment, as per Rule 21 of the Rules, 1957? 2. Whether the deviation from Rule 21 by RPSC in asking candidates to give a choice of only one District for appointment was a violation of the petitioners' rights?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Rule 21 of the Rules, 1957, and held that the proviso to the rule, which required candidates to state two Districts or Departments in the application form, was mandatory and remained in effect even after the amendment of Rule 19. The Court rejected the argument that the proviso became redundant after the amendment of Rule 19, which changed the examination from zone-wise to District-wise. 2. The Court held that the RPSC's deviation from Rule 21 by asking candidates to give a choice of only one District for appointment was a violation of the petitioners' rights. The Court reasoned that this deviation resulted in the infringement of the petitioners' legal and legitimate right to be considered for appointment in two Districts, as per the Rules, and marred their chances of selection and appointment.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the RPSC to consider the petitioners for appointment on the vacant posts in Bikaner District, where candidates with less than 38% marks had been appointed. The Court also directed the RPSC to verify the marks obtained by three petitioners who had approached the Court by letter petition and, if they had obtained not less than 38% marks, to give them appointments in Bikaner District in accordance with their merit.
JUDGMENT
1. - In all the above-mentioned writ petitions, common questions of law have been raised, therefore, all the petitions are decided by single order. It is claimed by the petitioners that the Combined Competitive Examinations for Lower Division Clerks, for which advertisement was issued on July 23,1987 (Ex.1) were not held in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for brevity, 'Rules, 1957') and option of giving two Districts for appointment was not given, therefore, meritorious Candidates could not get appointment. It has been prayed that the selection made and appointments given be, therefore, quashed & set aside. Alternatively, out of the remaining vacancies in Bikaner district, the petitioners be given appointment as lower Division Clerks.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for brevity, 'RPSC') issued an advertisement dated July 23, 1986, inviting applications for Lower Division clerks combined Competitive Examination for filling up the vacancies in Subordinate offices, Rajasthan Secretariat & RPSC in accordance with the procedure Laid down in Rules 19,20 &21 of the Rules, 1957. There were, in all 888 vacancies in Subordinate offices. Exhibit Number, as given in petition No. 299/90 are given in this order; although in other petitions also, more or less, similar documents have been filed. A printed Information Pamphlet (E.2) was also supplied by RPSC along with application form obtained by the petitioners for the said examination. In E.2 number of vacancies in subordinate offices has been shown District-wise. It has also been shown that the candidate has to mention one District, in which he desires to serve, as is mentioned in clause 3 (ga) on page 3 and clause 8(BA) on page 4 of Ex.2. Bach of the petitioners mentioned name of one District for appointment in Subordinate offices in Column 10 of the application. The petitioners appeared in the typing test conducted in the months of December 1987 and October, 1988. The result of the aforesaid examination was declared by RPSC on April 17, 1989 and recommendations were sent to respondent No. 1 in July, 1989, but the marks sheet (E.5) of the said examination was sent to the petitioners around December, 1989. All the petitioners, except one in petition No. 927/90, have secured 45.5 % marks to 66.5 % marks However, in Bikaner District, appointment were given to candidates, who even secured 38% marks. Thus, petitioners, who have secured much better marks, have not been able to get appointment, since they did not give choice of Bikaner District for appointment.
3. It is submitted by Mr. B.L. Samdaria, MR. S.K.Paul, Mr. Prahlad Singh and Mr. Ashok gaur, learned Counsel that the selections made by RPSC are liable to be aside, as the same have not been done in accordance with the Rules, 1957. Further, it is submitted that the vacancies in Bikaner District were increased from 6 to 408, in Jaipur District from 41 to 156 and in Ajmer District from 4 to 36, on account of which the petitioners who were more meritorious. could not get choice of proper District, since the number of vacancies originally given in the advertisement was quite less as shown above. In Para 17 of the Petition No. 299/90, the comparative list of seats originally advertised and subsequently raised is given. It is also pointed out that as required by Rule 21, the RPSC should have asked the candidates to mention names of two Districts in order of preference, in which they wanted to be appointed. However in contravention of this mandatory rule, the candidates were asked to give name of only one District, in which they desired to get appointment. It is submitted that on account of this, the candidates could not give choice of second District, due to...of which, the less; though petitioners have obtained higher marks than several of the appointed persons. It is further contend that when the vacancies were enormously in creased in Bikaner, Jaipur, Ajmer & other District
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
