Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ, Mr. Uma Shanker Vyas, J
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Appellant
Versus
DR. RACHITA MATHUR WIFE OF DR. RISHABH BHARGAWA – Respondent
Order :
1. Heard on prayer for stay.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Rajasthan Public Service Commission would submit that learned Single Judge erred in law in declaring 40% marks allocated for interview as arbitrary and unconstitutional whereas the break up of marks allows 40% weightage for the screening test, 20% weightage for academic and only 40% weightage for interview. The other submission advanced by learned counsels for the appellants is that the decision taken by Rajasthan Public Service Commission in its meeting dated 24.04.2019 was known to all the candidates, yet the writ-petitioner chose not to challenge the same, but participated in the process of selection. Writ petitioner filed the petition in exercise of liberty granted to her in another writ petition. Alternative submission of learned counsels for the appellants is that even if the finding of the learned Single Judge that prescription of 40% marks for interview was excessively high and against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ajay Hasia & Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravar
Allocation of interview marks must be transparent and compliant with existing rules at the time of advertisement.
Amended Rules of 1962 mandate that interview marks in public examinations cannot exceed 10% of total marks to ensure fair and transparent selection processes, reaffirming principles of constitutional....
The court upheld the validity of minimum qualifying marks for recruitment as a discretionary power of the Commission, emphasizing administrative fairness and the principle that participation in the p....
State respondents could not justify cancellation of earlier selection process made in terms of Employment Notice, by publishing a new advertisement for same post, as selection process had been comple....
The court upheld the recruitment process's validity, asserting that low qualification rates alone do not imply arbitrariness, and candidates cannot challenge post-failure under doctrines of acquiesce....
The selecting body has the authority to determine the method/criterion of selection, and the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has started.
The Commission cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection beyond the Rules.
Rule 12(1)(i) of Rules of 2006 prescribes that no person selected for appointment by direct recruitment shall be appointed unless appointing authority is satisfied that he possesses a good moral char....
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
