Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sabina, Manoj Kumar Vyas, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Kavita Godara and Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 103 of 2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8330 of 2020, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 106 of 2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8329 of 2020 and D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 112 of 2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8330 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2021
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) conducted the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2018. The appellants challenged the result of the examination, arguing that the RPSC had called category-wise candidates equal to 1.5 times of the number of vacancies for interview, which was illegal and arbitrary. The respondents, who were candidates who had appeared for the examination, argued that the RPSC should have called twice the number of candidates against the total advertised posts for interview. The Court held that the RPSC's action in calling category-wise candidates equal to 1.5 times of the number of vacancies for interview was legally justified and could not be said to be in violation of relevant rules. The Court also held that the RPSC's decision to call 1.5 times of the candidates for interview was justified, as it was not based on any mala fide or oblique motive and was aimed at selecting the best talent from all categories.
Fact of the Case:
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) conducted the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2018. The appellants challenged the result of the examination, arguing that the RPSC had called category-wise candidates equal to 1.5 times of the number of vacancies for interview, which was illegal and arbitrary. The respondents, who were candidates who had appeared for the examination, argued that the RPSC should have called twice the number of candidates against the total advertised posts for interview.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the RPSC's action in calling category-wise candidates equal to 1.5 times of the number of vacancies for interview was legally justified and could not be said to be in violation of relevant rules. The Court also held that the RPSC's decision to call 1.5 times of the candidates for interview was justified, as it was not based on any mala fide or oblique motive and was aimed at selecting the best talent from all categories.
Issues: 1. Whether the RPSC's action in calling category-wise candidates equal to 1.5 times of the number of vacancies for interview was legal and justified? 2. Whether the RPSC's decision to call 1.5 times of the candidates for interview was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the RPSC's action in calling category-wise candidates equal to 1.5 times of the number of vacancies for interview was legally justified and could not be said to be in violation of relevant rules. The Court relied on the following principles: * The RPSC has the discretion to determine the number of candidates to be called for interview. * The RPSC's decision in this regard will not be interfered with by the Court unless it is shown to be arbitrary or mala fide. * In the present case, the RPSC's decision was not arbitrary or mala fide, as it was based on the need to select the best talent from all categories. 2. The Court held that the RPSC's decision to call 1.5 times of the candidates for interview was justified, as it was not based on any mala fide or oblique motive and was aimed at selecting the best talent from all categories. The Court relied on the following principles: * The RPSC has the discretion to determine the number of candidates to be called for interview. * The RPSC's decision in this regard will not be interfered with by the Court unless it is shown to be arbitrary or mala fide. * In the present case, the RPSC's decision was not arbitrary or mala fide, as it was based on the need to select the best talent from all categories.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals filed by the appellants and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents.
JUDGMENT :
1. Vide this judgment abovementioned appeals as well as application would be disposed of, as they have arisen out of common order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. Respondents had filed writ petitions challenging the result dated 09.07.2020 of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2018.
3. Case of the respondents in the writ petitions, in brief, was that an advertisement dated 02.04.2018 had been issued for recruitment under various State and Subordinate Services under the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1999'). Initially, 405 vacancies were advertised in the State Services and 575 vacancies were advertised in Subordinate Services. Thereafter, a corrigendum advertisement dated 01.07.2020 was issued prescribing revised bifurcation of State and Subordinate Services wherein 421 posts were advertised in State Services and 593 posts were advertised in Subordinate Services making combined total of 1014 vacancies. Respondents had applied for the posts under their respective category. The selection process was to take place in three stages. Preliminary examination was conducted for shortlisting the candidates, who were required to appear in the main examination. No weightage was to be given to the candidates vis-à-vis their marks obtained in the preliminary examination. Main examination was based upon objective type questions consisting of four papers with 800 as total marks. Thereafter, the successful candidates were required to appear in the interview, which carried 100 marks. Initially the result of the preliminary examination was declared on 23.10.2018, wherein, cut off for Other Backward Class category was higher than the cut off of General category. The reserved category candidates, who were having more marks than the general category, were allowed to appear in the main examination. Extended result was declared on 13.12.2018 in pursuance to the interim order dated 01.12.2018 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24725/2018 titled as Surghan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another. The impugned result was declared on 09.07.2020, wherein, 1953 candidates had been declared qualified in the main examination in Non-TSP Area, which comes to near about 1.92 times of the number of the vacancies advertised. Thus, for one post less than two candidates had been called for interview. As per Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') could prescribe minimum qualifying marks and also such candidates, who would acquire marks over and above the minimum qualifying marks fixed by the Commission, would be eligible to appear in interview. Hence, the impugned result confining the zone of consideration to 1.92 times of the number of vacancies was illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted.
4. Appellants in their reply to the writ petitions averred that the main examination, 2018 result had been declared on 09.07.2020. 2010 candidates had qualified for the interview in the ratio of 1:1.92 against the total 1051 advertises posts for the RAS Examination, 2018. Para 3, 7 and 10 of the reply filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8330/2020 read as under:
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
