SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal, JJ.
Rajkamal Basitha S/o Jagdish Prasad Basitha & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Rajasthan High Court through the Registrar & Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11347, 11040, 11219, 11692, 11731, 12342, 12397, 13195, 14174 of 2021
Decided On : 21-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. H.V. Nandwana with Mr. P.C. Sharma, Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Mr. Krishan Chander Sharma assisted by Mr. Pawan Sharma, Mr. Vijay, Sharma and Mr. R.P. Meena, Mr. Amit Jindal, Mr. Takhat Singh, Mr. Punit Singhvi, Mr. Akshat Dewan, Mr. Ayush Singh, Mr. Pradeep Kumar in person through VC.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Ashish Sharma

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 233 (2) - Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 - Rule 40 – Cadre - Examination - Cut-off marks - Reserved category candidates - Recruitment process - Challenge of all petitioners is to ongoing recruitment process undertaken by High Court administration for direct recruitment to District Judges in the Rajasthan Judicial Service - Petitioners are all those candidates who had appeared in response to the advertisement issued by the High Court administration in which in all 85 vacancies in cadre of District Judge for direct recruitment were notified. 23 vacancies were for general category candidates out of which six were set apart for women candidates which would include one vacancy for a widow. There was bifurcation of the remaining vacancies for different reserved category candidates such as SC/ST, OBC, EWS and MBC. In each reserved category also there was sub-bifurcation in favour of women candidates - Held, According to petitioners as per clause (2) of Article 233 of Constitution any person who is in service of Union or State is disqualified for direct recruitment to post of District Judge – Court do not entertain this contention for several reasons - exercise undertaken by specially constituted committee which culminated into a well-reasoned report touching threadbare on each and every disputed question, and which report was accepted by examination committee, calls for no interference - When examination committee invites suggestions and objections from candidates, multiple suggestions are bound to be received. However the instances where examination committee is forced to change correct answer and more importantly forced to delete the question has to be kept to minimum. When we refer to the examination committee and similar bodies as expert bodies least that the Court can expect is that such bodies do not commit multiple errors in setting up question papers which eventually force them to delete several questions. The question itself and the multiple choices presented in the question must be so clear as to permit no ambiguity. Not only the question but the choices presented must have one and only one clear cut answer possible - Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This group of petitions arises in similar back ground. The principal challenge of all the petitioners is to the ongoing recruitment process undertaken by the High Court administration for direct recruitment to the District Judges in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. The petitioners are all those candidates who had appeared in response to the advertisement issued by the High Court administration on 05.01.2021 in which in all 85 vacancies in the cadre of District Judge for direct recruitment were notified. 23 vacancies were for general category candidates out of which six were set apart for women candidates which would include one vacancy for a widow. There was bifurcation of the remaining vacancies for different reserved category candidates such as SC/ST, OBC, EWS and MBC. In each reserved category also there was sub-bifurcation in favour of women candidates.

2. As per the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the said Rules of 2010') and in particular Rule 40, the recruitment would be made on the basis of competitive examination in accordance with Schedule-III. The procedure would be held in 3 stages i.e. preliminary examination, main examination and interview to test the candidate's knowledge and fitness for appointment. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination by a candidate who is called for the main examination will not be counted for determining his final merit. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 40 of the said Rules of 2010, the number of candidates to be admitted to the main examination will be to the extent of 15 times the total number of notified vacancies (category-wise). In the said range all those candidates who secure same percentage of marks will be admitted to the main examination. As per sub-rule (4) of Rule 40 of the said Rules of 2010, on the basis of marks secured in the main examination, candidates to the extent of 3 times of total number of notified vacancies shall be declared qualified to be called for interview. Rule 41 provides that the Court shall prepare the merit list category-wise on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the main examination and in the interview considering the suitability in general. Proviso to Rule 41 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any rule or schedule, and having regard to the requirement of efficiency in service, the Court may determine such cut-off marks as considered fit for being recommended for appointment. Select list of the successful candidates would be prepared as provided under Rules 42 and appointment be offered as provided under Rule 43 of the said Rules of 2010.

3. The preliminary examination was conducted by the High Court on 25.07.2021. This examination contained objective questions with multiple choices and had no negative marks prescribed. The result of this examination was declared on 16.09.2021. The cut-off marks for different categories was prescribed as under:-

    Cut of Marks

Category

Cut of Marks

General

96

General (Widow)

73

General (Divorcee)

84

SC

58

ST

58

OBC-NCL

85

OBC-NCL (Women)

79

MBC-NCL

65

EWS

69

EWS (Women)

66

4. On the basis of these cut-off marks candidates in various categories were declared successful in the preliminary examination and were shortlisted for being admitted in the main examination. The roll numbers of the successful candidates was published in the result declared on 16.09.2021.

5. The result was declared by first publishing the model answer keys for all questions of the preliminary examination which would enable the candidate to make a representation with respect to correctness of any of these answers. Several representations were received from different candidates. All these representations were examined by specially constituted committee comprising of 2 Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and Dr. N






















            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top