1. It is evident from the advertisement dated 28.4.2016 (Annex.1) inviting applications for eligible candidates for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Competitive Examination, 2016 (RAS) Preliminary that posts were reserved for DC candidates exclusively for Department of Food and Civil Supply Subordinate Services and Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services only. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the said advertisement. It was specifically mentioned in the note that the said posts will be filled by DC candidates belonging/relating to the Department of Food and Supply and Department of Excise only. It was also mentioned that 15 times of the posts reserved will be called for the main examination. Admittedly, there were 18 posts reserved for DC candidates for these two departments i.e. Food and Supply and Excise Department. The petitioner belongs to the Department of Excise. As many as 290 candidates have been allowed to participate in the main examination against the said 18 posts of DC quota for the Department of Food and Supply and Excise. The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act and found that only 34 candidates belonging to the department of Food and Supply and Excise had applied against these posts. It is not understood as to how the rest of the candidates are being allowed to appear in the examination even though they do not belong to this department.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC while vehemently arguing and placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Ranu Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil Writ No.190/2016) decided on 8.9.2016, stated that the petitioner has got less marks than the cut off and therefore, he is not eligible. The cut off marks are stated to be 59.36.

3. It is relevant and important to point out that the said cut off marks have been calculated as per the marks obtained by candidates of numerous departments and not of those belonging to the department of Food and Supply and Excise. The cut off marks of the candidates of other departments could not have been taken into consideration as they were not eligible to apply against the post reserved for Food and Supply and Excise Department. Thus, the cut off marks should have been taken inter se of the candidates belonging to concerned department only i.e. Food and Supply and Excise Department.

4. The learned counsel for the RPSC argued that RPSC has no way to find out whether the candidates who have filled their form in DC quota belong to Food and Supply, Excise or any other department. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the RPSC that such candidates who have been called for main examination will not be eligible to be selected against the post reserved for DC candidates exclusively for Food and Supply Department and Excise Department. In view of this, it is apparent that ineligible candidates have been called to take the examination at the cost of eligible candidates against these posts. If it is so, then the correction/rectification/anomaly in the examination form/or error, if at all, should have been corrected at the departmental level. If the information can be obtained from RTI that only 34 candidates belonging to the two departments have applied, how come the RPSC did not get to know of it or had no way of finding out. The petitioner, who is eligible vis-a-vis. those candidates who have been called for main examination cannot suffer under these circumstances and on account of the faulty procedure.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner will be allowed to participate in the main examination especially taking into account that as per the information received under Right to Information Act (Annex.8) and (Annex.10), there are only 34 such candidates available from the two departments. Thus, the candidates who are eligible against the 18 posts are only 34, a number much less than the 15 times required to be called.

Allowed as above.