1990 Supreme(Raj) 690
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Secretary, Raj. Public Service Commission, Ajmer - Appellant
Versus
Om Dutt Sharma And Anr. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 263 of 1990 alongwith connected Appeal No. 264 of 1990.
Decided On : 10-10-1990
The restriction of choice of districts for appointment to only one district by the RPSC was arbitrary and violative of the equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14, 16 - EQUALITY - APPOINTMENT - SELECTION - MERIT - RESTRICTION OF CHOICE OF DISTRICTS FOR APPOINTMENT - ARBITRARY - VIOLATION OF EQUALITY - DIRECTION TO CONSIDER CANDIDATURE OF ALL CANDIDATES ON THE BASIS OF MERIT.
Fact of the Case:
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) conducted a combined competitive examination for the recruitment of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in various districts of Rajasthan. The candidates were required to indicate their preference for one district only. After the examination, the RPSC prepared a select list of candidates and forwarded it to the State Government for making appointments. However, it was found that some candidates with lower merit had been appointed in certain districts, while candidates with higher merit had been left out. Some of the aggrieved candidates filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the RPSC had acted arbitrarily in restricting the choice of districts for appointment to only one district. This had resulted in the appointment of candidates with lower merit in certain districts, while candidates with higher merit had been left out. The High Court directed the RPSC to consider the candidature of the petitioners (respondents in the appeals) alone against the remaining posts of LDCs.
Issues: 1. Whether the RPSC acted arbitrarily in restricting the choice of districts for appointment to only one district? 2. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the RPSC to consider the candidature of the petitioners alone against the remaining posts of LDCs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The RPSC acted arbitrarily in restricting the choice of districts for appointment to only one district. This was because the number of posts in different districts had been increased after the issuance of the advertisement. The RPSC was bound to make selection on the basis of the final number of posts given by the Government. It was not necessary to issue any corrigendum. 2. The High Court was not justified in directing the RPSC to consider the candidature of the petitioners alone against the remaining posts of LDCs. This was because there were other candidates with higher merit who had not approached the court. The direction of the High Court would have resulted in the denial of consideration to such candidates.
Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed. The order of the High Court dated August 1, 1990 was set aside in so far as it related to the consideration of the candidature of the petitioners alone against the remaining posts of LDCs. The RPSC was directed to issue a general notice calling upon all the remaining candidates who had been successful at the examination to give their options for a second district. The RPSC was then directed to prepare a select list on the basis of merit and choice of districts and forward the same to the Government for the purpose of making appointments.
JUDGMENT
1. - These special appeals have been filed against the order dated August 1, 1990 of the learned Single Judge, by which 58 writ petitions have been decided.
2. Learned Single Judge has given a direction that against 140 seats of Lower Division Clerks, which remained unfilled in Bikaner District shall be filled by considering the candidature of the petitioners who have given their second choice for option in Bikaner District. It has also been observed that they shall be given appropriate seniority at appropriate place in accordance with their merit.
3. The respondents has filed writ petitions before the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the selection made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as "the Commission") for appointment to the post of L.D.C. on the basis of combined competitive examination held by the Commission in pursuance to the Advertisement dated July 23, 1986. In the petitions, it was alleged that the Commission had invited applications for 888 posts of L.D.Cs. to be filled in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957. In addition to this, 67 posts of L.D.Cs. for Rajasthan Public Service Commission were also advertised. District wise distribution of seats were given in the Information Pamphlet, which was furnished to the candidates together with the printed copy of Syllabus, along with the application from. According to this pamphlet the candidates applying for recruitment to the post of L.D.C. in subordinate offices had to mention the name of one district in which he wanted appointment. The Commission conducted examination sometimes in the year 1987 and also in the year 1988. The result of the examination was announced on 17.4.1989. The names of selected candidates were forwarded by the Commission in July 1989 to the State Government for the purpose of making appointments. It was stated in the petitions that a large number of appointments had been made in favour of the candidates who have secured much lower percentage of marks than the petitioners in the writ petitions. This had happened because option was given to the candidates to chose only one district for the purpose of appointment. As per the statements contained in the petitions, number of posts were increased in different districts. In case of Bikaner district, initially 6 posts were advertised, but subsequently, the number was raised to 408 and 76 candidates who had secured just 30% marks i.e. pass-marks had been given appointments in Bikaner district. The Commission had recommended the names of 1700 candidates. For Bikaner district 268 names against the vacancies of 408 posts were recommended to the Government for subordinate offices. The petitioners submitted that as per the scheme of Rules 19, 20, 21 and 24 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 the candidates were entitled to be given option for more than one district for the purpose of appointment and the Commission had committed a serious error in restricting the choice of the candidates to only one district.
4. The Commission who was respondent No. 2 in the writ petitions, filed a reply. In the reply it was asserted that in all 98537 applications were received in pursuance of the Advertisement dated July 23, 1986. It was also stated that number of posts in different districts had been increased after issuance of advertisement. It was within the competence of the State Government to increase or reduce the number of posts and the Commission was bound to make selection on the basis of final number of posts given by the Government. It has also been made clear in the pamphlet given to the candidates that number of posts can be increased or decreased at any time and it was not necessary to issue any corrizendum. According to the respondents, rule 21 of 1957 Rules had become redundant after the amendment dated 3.2.1976.
5. As already referred hereinabove, the learne
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
