Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Chandra Shekhar Sharma S/o Shri Banwari Lal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17538 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 259 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 268 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 977 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1001 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1412 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3408 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9922 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10222 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14969 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17399 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17785 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17814 of 2016, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 122 of 2017, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2336 of 2017, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11922 of 2016
Decided on : 12-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Prateek Mathur, Mr. Girraj Prasad Sharma, Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with, Mr. Rakesh Dhawan, Mr. Zaid Ul Haq
For the Respondent: Mr. M.F. Baig, Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, G.C. with, Mr. Shivam Chauhan, Mr. Rajendra Soni with, Mr. Vishal Soni, Mr. Ashish Sharma, Mr. Bhagwat Singh
The court affirmed that the equipercentile scaling method can be validly applied in extraordinary circumstances to ensure fairness in selection processes.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - Writ Petition - Recruitment Process - Equipercetile Scaling Method - Dismissal of Petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the selection process for the Assistant Prosecution Officer (APO) Exam, 2015, claiming the adoption of an unannounced scaling method after a re-examination was arbitrary and led to their exclusion from the interview stage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the equipercentile scaling method was adopted due to extraordinary circumstances and was uniformly applied to all candidates, thus dismissing the petitioners' claims of arbitrariness.
Issues: Whether the adoption of the equipercentile scaling method in the selection process was arbitrary and whether the petitioners were unjustly excluded from the interview stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the equipercentile method was a justified response to the varying difficulty levels of the examinations and was applied uniformly, thus not constituting discrimination or arbitrariness.
Result: The petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved is identical. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the sides, the present of batch of petitions is being jointly taken up for final disposal. For the purpose of recording arguments, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1022/2016 is being taken up as the lead file.
2. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:
“1. That the entire selection process of APO Exam, 2015 and result dated 19.11.2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside and further direction to initiate fresh selection process be given or in alternate the action-omission of the respondents in not selecting the petitioners in the final result of APO Exam, 2015, for the post of APO declared on 19.11.2016 on the basis of equated marks and not as per actual marks obtained by them may be declared arbitrary & be quashed and set aside and accordingly the respondents may be directed to take into account the actual marks secured by the petitioners in the written examination for the appointment on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer, in pursuance of the advertisement (Annx.1).
2. The respondents may be directed to allow the petitioners, having more than cut-off marks, to appointment on the post of APO Grade-II, in the interest of justice.
3. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioners.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an advertisement dated 15.05.2015 was issued by the respondent- RPSC for recruitment on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer (APO). As per the scheme of the examination, the selection process consisted of two stages i.e. Written Examination and Interview. The former stage i.e. written examination, consisted of two papers, wherein the candidates were required to score 35% marks in each paper independently and 40% marks in aggregate to qualify for the subsequent stage of ‘Interview’. The petitioner participated in the written examination held on 18.10.2015 at the allotted center in Udaipur. Subsequently, the respondent-RPSC issued a press note dated 20.10.2015, wherein it was mentioned that due to some technical error at the examination centers in Udaipur and Alwar, the Paper-I Examination (Online) of the candidates could not start/commence and therefore, the Paper-I and Paper-II Examination shall be re-conducted on 25.10.2015, for those candidates who were allotted the aforementioned examination centers. The petitioners duly participated in the said re-examination.
4. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioners averred that there was a significant difference in the difficulty level of the two examinations so conducted on 18.10.2015 and 25.10.2015, and therefore, in a purported attempt to iron out the discrepancies, the respondent-RPSC introduced the unusual, unscientific and arbitrary method of ‘scaling’ of marks. It was argued that on account of said scaling of marks, a huge difference arose between the marks actually obtained by the candidates as opposed to those reflected in the revised result, post-scaling. Therefore, as a result of said scaling, the petitioners failed to qualify for the subsequent stage of the selection process i.e. the interview. At this stage, learned counsel averred that the fact of adopting the method of ‘scaling’ was not spelled out in the advertisement and therefore, the same could not be adopted at a subsequent stage. Moreover, even the rules of the respondent/RPSC do not recognize the said method of scaling.
Therefore, the mere adoption of such a method has vitiated the entire selection process, which has resulted into the arbitrary ousting of the petitioners from the selection process, on account of them not having qualified for the interview.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that as per the RTI information so procured vide letter da
