Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 753
[Citation : 2010(2) RLW 1495 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Satyapal Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Jain, J.)
HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J.
Satyapal Singh
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2004, decided on 19.05.2009
Rajeev Sogarwal, with Tanveer Ahmed, for Petitioners;
M.S. Kachhawa, Additional Government Counsel, for Respondents
Headnote:(a) Rajasthan Jail Subordinate Service Rules, 1998, Rule 27—Eligibility for the post of warder mentioned at S.No. 12 in category II of Schedule-I appended with the Rules —Requirement of written examination and applicability of Rule 27 for the post of warder — Held — No written examination is required to be conducted for the post of warder — Rule 27 is not applicable for this post. (Paras 7 to 9)
¼d½jktLFkku tsy v/khuLFk lsok fu;e] 1998] fu;e 27 & fu;eksa ds lkFk layXu ifjf'k"B I ds Js.kh II esa Øe la[;k 12 ij mYysf[kr ^^okMZj** ds in gsrq vgZrk & okMZj ds in gsrq fyf[kr ijh{kk dh okaNuh;rk ,oa fu;e 27 dk mi;kstu&vfHkfu/kkZfjr&^okMZj* ds in gsrq fdlh Hkh izdkj dh fyf[kr ijh{kk ysus dh vko';drk ugha gS&bl in gsrq fu;e 27 ykxw ugha gksrkA ¼in la-7]9½
(b) Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 115; Rajasthan Jail Subordinate Service Rules, 1998, Rule 27—Principle of estopple —Application — Issued advertisement on 21.12.98 for the post of warder — The petitioners appeared before physical screening committee for qualifying physical efficiency test and having found "unfit" on `unqualified' in the same challenged the advertisement by way of writ petition in 2004 — Held — They were aware of the Rules — In case they were aggrieved with the advertisement, then the cause of action had already accrued soon after issuance of advertisement — Now they are estopped to challenge the action of respondent—Suffers from delay/latches also. (Para 10)
¼[k½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk 115( jktLFkku tsy v/khuLFk lsok fu;e] 1998] fu;e 27&focU/k dk fl)kUr&mikstu&^okMZj* ds in gsrq 21-12-1998 dks foKkiu tkjh fd;k&izkFkhZx.k 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk vfgZr djus gsrq 'kkjhfjd izfrPNkfnr lfefr ds le{k mifLFkr gq,&^v;ksX;* ;k ^vfgZr* ugha ik;s tkus ij o"kZ 2004 esa ;kfpdk ds tfj;s foKkiu dks pqukSfr nh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & os fu;eksa ls okfdQ Fks & ;fn os foKkiu ls O;fFkr Fks rks foKkiu ds tkjh gksus ds rqjUr i'pkr~ gh okn gsrq mRiUu gks x;k Fkk & vc os izR;FkhZ dh dk;Zokgh dks pqUukSfr nsus ls focU/k gS & foyEc@xQyr ls xzflr gSA
;kfpdk,a [kkfjt dhA ¼in la[;k 10½
2. In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Advertisement dated 21st December, 1998 (Annexure 1) issued by the respondent Director General of Prisons, Rajasthan, Jaipur advertising the 244 posts of `Warder' being contrary to Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Jails Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 (here-in-after referred to "Rules of 1998"). The process of selection mentioned in the advertisement is that physical efficiency test will be conducted by physical Screening Committee, the persons securing more than 50 marks in the physical efficiency test will be called for interview.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Rule 26, the competitive examination for direct recruitment to a post in category I of Schedule I shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the Scheme of examination laid down in Schedule-II and as per Rule 27, the candidates, who obtained 36% marks in each paper and 40% marks in aggregate in the competitive examination shall be considered to have obtained qualifying marks at the examination. Their contention is that Rule 27 is independent and the obtaining of 36% marks in each paper and 40% marks in the aggregate is necessary for all the posts of Category I and Category II of Schedule-I, whereas the respondents are not conducting any written examination for the post of warder, therefore, their action is contrary to Rule 27 of the Rules of 1998, hence, the entire process of selection, as mentioned in the Advertisement, he declared as illegal and contrary to Rule 27, and be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the State contended that there are two categories of posts categorized as Category I and Category II in Schedule I and as per Rule 26, the written examination is required to be conducted by the Commission in respect of posts in Category I of Schedule I and not for the posts of Category II of Schedule-1. The post of Warder is admittedly falls in category II of Schedule-I, hence no written examination is required to be conducted for the said post. So far as Rule 27 is concerned, it is contended that the requirement of obtaining minimum marks in each paper and aggregate relates to the examination to be conducted by the Commission for the post falling in category I of Schedule I. So far as the post of Warder which falls in Category II of Schedule-I is concerned, a procedure for recruitment has been mentioned in Rule 28 and as per sub-rule (4) of it, it is clear that all candidates whose applications are found to be complete in all respect shall, in case of Warders, be permitted to appear before the physical Screening Committee for qualifying the physical efficiency test. The test shall carry 100 marks and only those candidates, who secured 50 marks or above shall be allowed to appear before the Board for interview, which shall carry 50 marks. He, therefore, contended that Advertisement dated 21st December, 1998 is in accordance with Rule 28 itself and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that all the petitioners submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the respondents by appearing for physical efficiency test and having found `unfit' in it, they preferred the present writ petitions, therefore, they are also estopped from raising all such pleas and writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
6. For ready reference, Rule 26 to 28, Schedule-I, Category I, Category-II and Schedule-II are reproduced as under:
"26. Authority for conducting competitive examination.- The competitive examination for di
