Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
G.M.Lodha, J.
Miss Kamlesh Bhardwaj Etc. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Anr. - Respondent
S.W.C.W.P. No. 169 of 1982 and 30 other Writ petition.
Decided On : 29-03-1982
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - SELECTION OF LECTURERS - SCREENING TEST - INTERPRETATION OF ADVERTISEMENT - SUITABILITY TEST - RULE 9 OF RAJASTHAN EDUCATION SERVICE (COLLEGE BRANCH) RULES, 1971 - DETERMINATION OF VACANCIES - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, unsuccessful candidates who applied for being selected as Lecturers in the various departments of the Govt. Colleges of Rajasthan, challenged the selection process conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for the posts of lecturers in various departments. The main grievances of the petitioners were that those candidates who fulfilled both qualifications of Clause (a) & Clause (b) cannot be rejected without being considered in the interview, that the screening test was not a part of the suitability test, and that the determination of vacancies was not done in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Education Service (College Branch) Rules, 1971 (the Rules of 1971).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that: * The screening test was permissible and the RPSC had not committed any error of law in holding it for determination of the zone of consideration. * In future, the RPSC would not require the persons who fulfilled conditions (a) & (b) in such cases to undergo the screening test. However, if the number of such persons was very large, so as to require any curtailment, then screening test could also be held for them, but while doing so the number of the persons who were to come into exception would not be taken into account. * At all stages and particularly at stages of the interview, the first thing which the RPSC should find out was whether those persons who fulfilled qualifications (a) and (b) & therefore, fulfilled both the conditions were suitable or not, and the moment they were found to be suitable in view of the marks which they were given in interviews, then they should be taken in the selection list and should be recommended. It was only after that these persons who were trying to get employment by resort to exception or proviso should be considered and thereafter they can also be accommodated in case the persons who are in category A and B are found to be not suitable. * Rule 9 of the Rules of 1971 was directory and not mandatory. The correct view was that rule 9 was complied with as soon as the vacancies are determined in 1979. The process started and the requisition was sent and the consequential exercise of selections which means interview, screening test etc. are continuing and they need not lapse on account of completion of the year, 1979.
Issues: * Whether the screening test was a part of the suitability test. * Whether the determination of vacancies was done in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1971. * Whether the RPSC could reject candidates who fulfilled both qualifications of Clause (a) & Clause (b) without considering them in the interview.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the screening test was permissible and the RPSC had not committed any error of law in holding it for determination of the zone of consideration. However, in future, the RPSC would not require the persons who fulfilled conditions (a) & (b) in such cases to undergo the screening test. But in case the number of such persons who fulfil both conditions is very large, so as to require any curtailment, then screening test can also be held for them, but while doing so the number of the persons who are to come into exception would not be taken into account. The court further held that at all stages and particularly at stages of the interview the first thing which the RPSC should find out is whether those persons who fulfil qualifications (a) and (b) & therefore, fulfil both the conditions are suitable or not, and the moment they are found to be suitable in view of the marks which they are given in interviews, then they should be taken in the selection list and should be recommended. It is only after that these persons who are trying to get employment by resort to exception or proviso should be considered and thereafter they can also be accommodated in case the persons who are in category A and B are found to be not suitable. The court also held that Rule 9 of the Rules of 1971 was directory and not mandatory. The correct view was that rule 9 was complied with as soon as the vacancies are determined in 1979. The process started and the requisition was sent and the consequential exercise of selections which means interview, screening test etc. are continuing and they need not lapse on account of completion of the year, 1979.
Final Decision: The court accepted the writ petitions of the candidates who fulfilled both qualifications of Clause (a) & Clause (b) and directed the RPSC to interview them again and readjust their merit lists accordingly. The court also held that Rule 9 of the Rules of 1971 was directory and not mandatory.
(a) Good academic record with atleast a high second class (with minimum of 54% marks) Masters degree in the subject concerned of an Indian University or an equivalent degree of a foreign University, and
(b) A Ph.D., M. Phil/M. Litt. degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level or published work indicating the capacity of the candidates for independent research work.
Qualification 'C' all the post mentioned above (Sl. No. 1 to 20) was as under:
Candidates must have knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and one of the Rajasthani dialects.
Then there was a proviso and this proviso would assume great importance in the various points raised and the controversy debated before me and is adjudicated. The proviso runs as under:
Provided that (for the post mentioned above at Sl. No. 1 to 17 (a) a candidate possessing the qualifications at (b) is not available or is not considered suitable for appointment, the Commission may recommend the person who fulfils the requirement as given in (a) above on the condition that he will have to obtain the Ph. D. M. Phil/M. Litt. degree or recognised degree beyond Masters level within five years of his appointment, failing which he will not be able to earn future increment till he obtains the degree or gives evidence of published work of high standard indicating the capacity of the candidate for independent research work.
It is not in dispute that all those candidates whom I have put in category 'A' in the list annexed which would be 'schedule 'V, have got qualification which has been prescribed in Clause (b). The Public Service Commission after obtaining applications, held an examination which has been described as screening test for the purposes of weeding out good number of candidates in order to have a sizable number of candidates which can be interviewed. In this process many of the candidates who have qualifications both of Clause (a) and (b) were weeded out as they were not able to obtain sufficient marks which could entitle them to become eligible for the zone of consideration of or appearing in the interview. The result of the above was that many candidates who had qualifications both (a) & (b) were rejected immediately after the screening and were not permitted to appear in the interview Contrary to it many candidates who are not having qualifications of Clause b) & were only qualified having the Post Graduate degree as required by qualifications contained in Clause (a) were declared successful for being eligible in the zone of consideration and they were interviewed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Board of interview and selected.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
