The principle of migration for reserved category candidates to open competition is applicable only at the final stage of merit list preparation, not at preliminary screening or shortlisting stages. Establishing category-wise ratios for shortlisting at intermediate levels is a valid exercise of administrative discretion under governing recruitment rules.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. The present batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners, primarily laying a challenge to the screening result dated 26.11.2020 declared by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission ( for short 'RPSC') for the post of Veterinary Officer. In some of the writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the result for recruitment on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, wherein also, the scheme of examination and governing rules are pari materia.

2. The grievance of the petitioners, who belong to Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, in the present batch of petitions emanates from a common cause of action, alleging infringement of their fundamental rights in the matter of public employment. For the purpose of understanding the question under consideration as also the dispute involved and for the sake of convenience, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, although all the above writ petitions were heard analogously, the facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14328/2020 (Vishnu Datt Saini & Others vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others) are being taken into consideration for deciding this batch of writ petitions by this common judgment.

3. The selection in question originates from an advertisement dated 22.10.2019, issued for filling up 900 posts of Veterinary Officer by direct recruitment, comprising 816 fresh vacancies and 84 backlog vacancies, under the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1963'). The candidates possessing Bachelor’s degree in Veterinary Science or Animal Husbandry or its equivalent degree issued by a recognised University, were eligible to participate in the process of recruitment.

4. Process of selection has been prescribed in the advertisement in the following manner:

5. The aforesaid advertisement also provides for a screening examination, which as per the documents placed on record was held on the basis of Multiple Choice Questions carrying maximum 300 marks. The screening test consisted of 150 objective-type questions carrying one mark each, with a provision of one-third negative marking. Candidates, who qualified the screening examination in the ratio of 1:3 of the vacancies advertised, were to be allowed for Interview. As per the prescribed scheme of selection, for the purpose of preparing the select list after interview, candidates would be given marks out of maximum 100, out of which marks obtained in screening shall carry a weightage of 40 marks on the basis of formula prescribed in the advertisement, 20 weightage marks were assigned to academic qualifications and 40 weightage marks were assigned to the interview.

6. The petitioners, having applied pursuant to the said advertisement, appeared in the screening examination conducted on 02.08.2020. According to the petitioners, despite their meritorious performance, they were excluded from the list of candidates shortlisted for interview.

7. It is specifically pleaded that certain OBC candidates, including the petitioners, who had secured comparatively higher marks, such as Chhoutu Ram Farroda with a tentative score of 149 marks, were excluded from the zone of consideration, whereas candidates belonging to the general category with significantly lower marks, such as Ankit Kumar Singh with 78 marks, were included, as would be reflected from the comparative OMR sheets.