Hon'ble JAIN-I, J.—Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. In these writ petitions as well as intra-court appeals, the facts are similar and a common question of law is involved. Therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.

3. The relevant facts, for disposal of these cases, in brief, are that Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 9.9.2008 for the posts of Accountants, Jr. Accountants and Tehsil Revenue Accountants (back log posts) under the provisions of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Rules of 1963”) and Rajasthan Revenue Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Rules of 1975”). The petitioners appeared in the examination on 25.6.2011 and result thereof was declared on 19.10.2011. All petitioners failed in the competitive examination as they could not obtained the minimum qualifying marked in compulsory subjects as per rules.

4. Shri Narottam Meena and other filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17251/ 2011 and Shri Anil Kumar Meena & others filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15319/2011 before Single Bench. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge vide common order dated 3rd November, 2011. Shri Narottam Meena & others have preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.403/ 2012 and Shri Anil Kumar Meena has preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.913/2012. The other petitioners have preferred writ petitions directly before Division Bench challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1963 being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. Shri S.P. Sharma, learned Sr. counsel appearing along with Shri R.D. Meena on behalf of petitioners/appellants challenged the validity of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1963 on the ground that this rule is arbitrary and unconstitutional as it provides minimum qualifying marks in compulsory subjects and no minimum qualifying marks have been provided for optional subjects. He submitted that the advertisement relates to the post of Accountant, whereas for optional papers like Book Keeping & Advanced Accountancy, Indian Economics and Business Methods, Auditing, Elements of Cost Accounting etc., no minimum marks have been provided. A person, who has obtained even 2 to 3 marks in optional subjects can be selected, if he has obtained the minimum qualifying marks in compulsory subjects, whereas, looking to the post of Accountant, the minimum marks should have been provided in optional subjects and, not in compulsory subjects. Therefore, there is no reasonable nexus behind framing of this rule and as such it is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.

6. Shri Sharma also submitted that vide notification dated 5.7.2011, a relaxation was granted in minimum qualifying marks for the SC and ST candidates. However, in the present matter the amended rule has not been applied though result was declared subsequent to amendment. He, therefore, submitted that action of the respondents in not applying the amended rule vide Notification dated 5.7.2011 relating to relaxation is illegal and bad in law. Shri Sharma also submitted that petitioners obtained very good marks in optional subjects but they could not be awarded minimum marks in the compulsory subjects and they were not granted the benefit of relaxation of 5% in compulsory subjects in view of the amendment made vide Notification dated 5.7.2011. Therefore, they could not be selected. Some of the petitioners filed writ petitions before Single Bench, which were dismissed. One of the ground for dismissal of the writ petition by Single Bench was that constitutional validity of Rule 22 has not been challenged. Therefore, the other petitioners have preferred writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1963. He, therefore, submitted that Rule 22 be declared as ultra vires to the provisions of the Const

Click Here to Read the rest of this document