The court upheld the appointment process, ruling that the petitioner did not meet the necessary cut-off marks for Sub-Inspector, thus denying her claim for appointment.

ORDER :

1. Having remained partly successful in the selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 09.04.2007 (Annex.1), the petitioner (working as Platoon Commander) herein seeks appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector (instead of Platoon Commander) in general category seeking parity with her similarly situated counter-parts, who have been given appointment by virtue of this Court judgment dated 20.09.2011 in SBCWP No. 3705/2009.

2. Briefly speaking relevant facts are that the respondents advertised 151 posts for Sub-Inspector (A.P.), 87 posts for Platoon Commander (Sub-Inspector R.A.C.), and 6 posts for Sub-Inspector (M.B.C.). Among these, 22 posts in the Sub-Inspector (A.P.) cadre, 13 posts in the Platoon Commander (Sub-Inspector R.A.C.) cadre, and 1 post in the Sub-Inspector (M.B.C.) cadre were reserved for OBC candidates. In response to this advertisement, the petitioner applied for the position and took the examination. In the final result her total score was reduced by 5 marks due to the scaling process.

2.1. However, vide a judgment dated 20.9.2011 in SBCWP No. 3705/2009 (Ramnarayan Bhanwariya Vs. State of Rajasthan), this Court struck down the scaling formula adopted by the respondents, finding it to be unjust. Subsequently, the respondents issued a communication to the petitioner on 13.7.2012, calling her for a medical examination. She pleads that despite successfully clearing all stages of the selection process, the respondents have yet to offer her appointment on the post.

Hence, this petition.

3. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply inter alia is that the last cut-off marks for general (Female) were 263, whereas, according to the petitioner's own assertion, she secured only 235 marks. According to her marksheet, the petitioner secured 85 marks in Hindi, but the scaled marks were mentioned as 80, thus reducing her aggregate score by 5 marks due to scaling.

3.1. That SBCWP No. 3705/2009 (Ramnarayan Bhanwariya Vs. State of Rajasthan) along with four other identical writ petitions were all allowed on 20.09.2011 by this Court. In compliance with the judgment, RPSC issued an amended merit list, and in that process, the petitioner was also called to appear for a medical examination. However, the letter clearly mentioned that calling for the medical examination and verification of character, and being found fit, would not necessarily mean the issuance of the appointment order.

3.2. Regarding the judgment dated 24.07.2012 in SBCWP No. 6350/2012, it is based on the observations made in the judgment dated 20.09.2011 in SBCWP No. 3705/2009. The relief granted was specifically in persona and not in rem. Hence petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. In response, the stand taken by the petitioner in her rejoinder is that the petitioner’s original merit number was 666 (Roll No. 220214), but after the judgment, her merit improved to 580 in the amended list issued on 21.02.2012 (Annexure-R/R/1). Other candidates at numbers 581, 582, 586, 593, 604, 616, and 624 of merit list, placed below here, were appointed. On 23.04.2012 (Annexure-R/R/2), the respondents issued a list of 30 candidates for medical examination, with the petitioner ranked 27th. The respondents' assertion that they did not intend to call the petitioner is thus misleading.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

6. In sum and substance, apart from other arguments and grounds raised in the petition, the petitioner's case primarily hinges on two pivotal points:

(A) the assertion that respondent No.4, who obtained lesser marks than the petitioner, was still given the benefit of appointment in the general category;

(B) there are certain other candidates, as reflected in the office order dated 23.04.2012 (Annex.RR/3), who had obtained lesser marks than the petitioner but were still given the benefit of appointment in the general category.

7. First and foremost, addressing the second part of th