1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4497/05 Radha Kishan Pareek & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 19/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Deep Singh for the petitioners. Shri S.K. Saksena ) Shri S.N. Kumawat ) for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed by the three petitioners aggrieved by their non selection as Nayab Telsildar. They applied for such post pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.4.1999 issued by RPSC. It was a special recruitment made under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex- Service Men) Rules, 1988 for filling up 19 posts of Nayab Tehsildar and one post of District Industries Officer. Petitioners appeared in the written examination held on 4.8.2002, result of which was declared on 24.10.2002. They were called for the interview which was conducted from 11.11.02 to 14.11.02. Candidature of the petitioners was rejected by the respondent-RPSC on 2 10.12.2002 on the premise that they had already availed of the benefit of ex- servicemen and they cannot therefore second time take the advantage of the same position. The candidature of the respondents no.3 to 5 also likewise was rejected on the ground that they have availed of the benefit of reservation in the category of ex-servicemen and once they have secured appointment in that quota, they cannot second time claim appointment in that quota. The writ petitions were filed by both the petitioners as well as the private respondents. Petitioners filed the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9038/02 jointly whereas respondents filed three separate writ petitions in the name of Ram Singh Gurjar, Heta Ram Chauhan and Umed Singh. While the writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed by judgement of the coordinate bench of this Court dated 13.10.2003, the writ petitions filed by the respondents was also likewise allowed. It was held that even an ex-servicemen who earlier secured appointment on a lower 3 post, can nevertheless apply for appointment on the higher post in the recruitment held under the Rules of 1988, supra. The judgement aforesaid was upheld by the division bench in the appeal filed by the RPSC. Reference is made to the division bench judgement in RSPC vs. Bhawani Singh, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1120/03 decided on 7.4.2005. Shri Deep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the appointment of the respondent nos.3 to 5 and has argued that the entire process of selection was vitiated because the respondents in making the selection has prepared the merit ignoring the marks secured in written examination and also has given the appointment to the candidates who made false declaration that they were not in Government service earlier. It was argued that when candidature of the petitioners was rejected, the private respondents also ought not to be considered for appointment. Their application is liable to be rejected because they 4 submitted false affidavits. As per the syllabus prescribed under the Rules of 1988, written examination having 200 marks is conducted and a candidate who fails to qualify in the written statement is not allowed to appear for interview and when written examination was held the merit ought to be prepared by taking the marks of both written examination and interview. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition and has argued that the candidature of not only the private respondents but also of the petitioners herein was rejected by the RPSC on the ground that they have both availed of the benefits admissible to ex-servicemen in recruitment held by respondents. This Court held for both of them that if they are appointed on a lower post and are seeking appointment on higher post in the recruitment held pursuant to the Rules of 1988, there would be no impediment even if they claim the benefit of being ex- servicemen for the second time. The RPSC in its reply has contested the claim of the 5 petitioners that selection is based only on interview and the marks of the written examination have been completely ignored. This has been specifically denied by the RPSC, which has asserted that final result of the petitioners as well as private respondents has been declared on the basis of the marks obtained in both the written examination and interview and that petition has been filed only because the petitioners remained unsuccessful. It was contended that since the private respondents nos.3 to 5 have appeared in the main select list respectively at S.No. 14, 4 and 12 and they were selected and the petitioners could not secure the placement in main list within the 19 advertised posts, they cannot be appointed. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the RPSC, no mandamus possibly can be granted requiring them to confer appointment on the petitioners ignoring their merit and at the same time, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in appointing the private 6 respondents who were appointed on the basis of merit position secured by them. I therefore do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/