IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that selection criteria, including minimum qualifying marks, must be transparent and accessible, and candidates cannot challenge the process after participating.

ORDER :

(Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondents may be directed to revise the result of the Physically Handicapped Category for the post of Veterinary Officer in pursuance of the selection process undertaken by them vide advertisement dated 22.10.2019 and it is also prayed that the petitioners may be granted appointment in the Physically Handicapped Category on the post of Veterinary Officer.

3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 22.10.2019 inviting applications for the post of Veterinary Officer. The petitioners applied for the post of Veterinary Officer considering themselves eligible in all respects. The screening test was conducted by the respondents and 40 marks were allocated for screening test, 20 marks were allocated for academic records and 40 marks were allocated for interview.

4. The petitioners being handicapped persons having locomotor disability, appeared for documents verification and also completed other formalities. The petitioners were called for interview, but after completion of the process, their names did not find place in the select list issued by the respondent- RPSC. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioners were not aware of the fact that minimum 45% marks are required to be obtained to qualify for the post of Veterinary Officer in the present selection process. He further submits that the condition of acquiring minimum 45% marks for appointment on the post of Veterinary Officer was not mentioned in the advertisement. He also submits that the rules of game cannot be changed after initiation of the process for recruitment. He further submits that after the present advertisement dated 22.10.2019, in the subsequent advertisements, the respondents have issued a Press Note prescribing minimum qualifying marks for selection process undertaken by them.

6. Learned counsel further submits that since in the present case, no such qualifying marks were mentioned in the advertisement, therefore, the respondents cannot disqualify the petitioners on the ground that they have not obtained the minimum qualifying marks. He also submits that in Rule 20 of Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Rules, 1963 (hereinafter refers to as ‘the Rule of 1963’), the only word ‘suitable’ has been used and therefore, the respondent- RPSC was under an obligation to disclose elaborately the criteria to be applied for judging the ‘suitability’ for selecting the candidates in pursuance of the advertisement dated 22.10.2019.

7. Learned counsel further submits that no document is placed on record which shows or suggests that minimum 45% marks are required to be obtained by a candidate in the Category of Physically Handicapped in the present selection process. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider candidature of the petitioners for the post of Veterinary Officer without adhering to the minimum qualifying marks of 45%.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- RPSC vehemently submits that in the present selection process, the aggregate of the 45% marks has been prescribed taking into consideration the decision of Full Commission. He further submits that earlier for the similar selection, the criteria for judging the suitability of a candidate was only interview, therefore, a decision was taken by Full Commission of the RPSC to allocate certain marks for screening and for academic record. This decision was taken only to reduce unbridled and unchecked discretion of interview Board by removing arbitrariness and to make the selection process more fair and transparent.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent- RPSC further submits that minimum marks of 45% in the present selections will be after addi