CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.9283/2010 Satya Narayan Gupta & Ors Versus State & Ors. (alongwith cognate cases as per Schedule appended) Date of Order ::: 03/12/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi For Petitioners : Sarva Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Hanuman Choudhary, Sajid Ali, Imran Khan, Ram B.Sharma, SR Choudhary, Dilip singh, Vijay Yadav, Naveen Dhuwan, SK Jain, Rampratap Saini, Ramehwar Sharma, Sandeep Bhagwati, Rajkumar Sharma, Manoj Bhardwaj, & Rahul Kanwar. For Respondents : Mr. SN Kumawat, Addl. Adv. Gen. for State and RPSC Sarva Shri Alok Sharma, Ashok Gaur, Suresh Charan, & Akhil Simlote. Since common controversy has been raised in this bunch of petitions, hence have been heard together at joint request and are being finally disposed of at admission stage. All the petitioners had participated in process of selection initiated by Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer (School Education) pursuant to advertisement No.1/2008-09/dt.10/05/2008 and No.8/2008-09 dt.02/08/2008 (CWP-10821/2010 & 11768/2010); and after having qualified in screening test, were called for interview but could not be finally selected, have approached by way of instant petitions. Post of Lecturer (School Education) is included in Group-F of Schedule appended to Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //2// ("Rules, 1970") - as per Scheme whereof, this post is to be filled in by the process of interview without holding any written examination. However, under advertisement dt. 10/05/2008 impugned, condition was stipulated that if there are larger number of candidates having applied for against vacancies advertised, the RPSC reserves its right to hold a screening test for short-listing a number of applicants for being called in process of interview based selection. It appears that pursuant to advertisement impugned herein, a large number of candidates applied for the vacancies advertised; as such in order to short list applicants, a screening test was held and on the basis of result thereof, three times to the number of vacancies advertised, applicants were called for interview and indisputably, all the petitioners appeared for interview on different dates but could not be finally selected by respondent-PSC as their names did not find place in the select list published by the PSC. Main grievance for filing of instant petitions is that under Scheme of Rules, 1970, State Government made amendments in existing Rr.16, 18 & 19 by which Rr.18A, 18B & 19A were added in Rules of 1970 vide notification dt.01/04/1998 and in terms of R.19A, such CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //3// candidates having obtained minimum qualifying marks in written examination as may be fixed by the PSC in their discretion are to be summoned for interview; and taking assistance thereof, main thrust of petitioners is that written examination held by the PSC is a part of selection process held pursuant to advertisement impugned herein; and the marks obtained therein by individual applicant are to be added to the marks obtained by them in process of interview to be considered for preparation of final select list but R.19A of Rules, 1970 being added vide amendment notification dt.01/04/1998 has not been looked into and taken note of by the PSC while publication of final select/merit list; and their action being in contravention of Scheme of Rules, 1970, select list prepared by PSC, itself, deserves to be set aside, and the PSC may be commanded to prepare fresh select/merit list of all the applicants participated in process of selection impugned herein after taking note of their marks obtained in written examination held in the form of screening test & interview - in absence whereof, action of respondent-PSC is wholly arbitrary being in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and also of R.19A of Rules, 1970. Counsel for petitioners further contended that marks of screening test CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //4// obtained by each of applicants cannot be ignored and it is a recognized mode; and holding the selection based only on viva voce/ interview gives unguided discretion to the authority which smacks of arbitrariness and is in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2001 SC 152) & Kumari Rashmi Mishra Vs. MP PSC (2006(12) SC 724). In their reply, the respondents have inter-alia averred that amendment notification dt.01/04/1998 on which much stress has been laid by petitioner, is not applicable in regard to process of interview based selection initiated by the PSC pursuant to impugned advertisement dt.10/05/2008 for the post of Lecturer (School Education) under the scheme of Rules, 1970 and as per existing scheme whereof, post of Lecturer (School Education) is to be filled up only on the basis of interview; and the screening test was held as notified in the advertisement impugned herein, to short list the candidates to be called for interview, if large number of candidates having applied for against the advertised vacancies; and therefore, candidates are to be called for interview in the ratio of 1 : 3 to the vacancies vide advertisement impugned; and the marks obtained by individual applicant in CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //5// screening test held are only for the purposes of short-listing and is not a part of selection process, and is not required to be included while publishing select/merit list and the procedure adopted in holding process of interview based selection is in conformity with Scheme of Rules, 1970. In support, Counsel for respondents relied upon decision (DB) in Smt. Usha Sharma Vs State (Special Appeal (Writ) No.397/2007 decided vide order dt.17/07/2007) (2007(4) WLC 411) & Dr. Bheru Singh Vs. State (2008(1) RLR 632). This Court has considered rival contentions advanced by Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined the material on record. Indisputably, all the petitioners participated in the process of interview based selection held for the post of Lecturer (School Education) being included in the Schedule appended to the Scheme of Rules, 1970 pursuant to advertisement impugned herein but their names do not find place in the select list. As per procedure provided for direct recruitment under Part-IV of the Rules, 1970, it is clear that selections are to be made only on the basis of interview and no written competitive examination has been provided; however Vide notification dt.01/04/1998 (No.F1 (1)DOP/A-II/ 85) by which certain amendments CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //6// were made under the Scheme of rules, 1970 by way of substitution of existing R.16, R.18(1) & (2) and addition of new Rules (R.18A, R.18B, R.19A & R.20A to existing R.18, R.19 & R.20. Relevant amendments made vide notification dt.01/04/98 are quoted ad infra: “(1) Amendment of rule 16: For the substantive provisions of rule 16 except the proviso thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely: - “Applications for appearing in the competitive examination for direct recruitment to the posts of District Education Officer, (Boys/Girls), Deputy Director (Junior) and Vice Principal, IASE, Ajmer/Professor IASE, Ajmer/Bikaner in the service and for appearing in interview for direct recruitment to other posts in the service shall be invited by the Commission by advertising the vacancies to be filled in, in the official gazette or in such other manner, as may be deemed fit.” (2) Amendment of rule 18: For the existing rule 18, the following shall be substituted, namely: - “18.Application/examination fee: - (1) A candidate for direct recruitment to a post in the service must pay the application/examination fee fixed by the commission in such manner as may be indicated by CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //7// them. (2) No claim for the refund of examination fee shall be held in reserve for any other examination except when the advertisement is cancelled by the Commission because of with- drawl of requisition by the Requisitioning authority or for any other reason in which case the amount shall be refunded.” Provided that no claim for the refund of fee shall be entertained after a period of one month from the date of issue of the letter of refund by the Commission to the candidate.” (3) After the existing rule 18, the following new rules shall be added, namely :- “18A: Authority for conducting the competitive examination for the post of District Education Officer (Boys/Girls) and other equivalent post and Syllabus 0 The examination shall be conducted by the commission in accordance with the scheme of examination and Syllabus prescribed in Schedule-VII.” “18B-Admission to the competitive Examination : (1) the number of changes which a candidate can avail of shall be restricted to two. (2) The applications which are found to be incomplete and have not been filled in CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //8// accordance with instructions issued by the Commission shall be rejected by them at the initial stage. The Commission shall permit rest of those candidates to appear in the examination provisionally to whom they consider, is proper to grant the the certificate of admission. No candidate shall be admitted to an examination unless he holds a certificate of admission to that examination granted by the Commission. Before appearing at the examination, it should be ensured by the candidate himself/ herself that he/she fulfills the condition in regard to age, educational qualifications, experience, number of changes, if any, etc. as provided in these Rules. Being allowed to take the examination shall not entitle the candidate to presumption of eligibility. The Commission shall scrutinise later on the applications of such candidates only as qualify in the written examination and shall call only the eligible candidate to viva- voce, if any. (3) The decision of the Commission as to the admission of a candidate to an examination, eligibility and consequent admission to viva-voce, if any shall be final.” (4) After the existing rule 19, the following new rule shall be added, namely: CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //9// “19A- Personality and viva-voce test :Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the written examination as may be fixed by the commission in their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview. The Commission shall award marks to each candidate interviewed by them, having regard to their character, personality, address, physique and knowledge of Rajasthan culture. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the written examination by each such candidate.” (5) Amendment of Rule 20: (1) the figure (1) shall be inserted between the expressions “recommendations of the Commission:-” and “The Commission”. (2) After sub-rule (1) as so numbered the following sub-rule (2) shall be added, namely: “(2) In respect of posts which are required to be filled in through competitive examination, the commission shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in the personality and viva-voce examination. Provided that the Commission shall in case of candidates belonging to the other Backward classes, schedule castes or schedule Tribes and Woman candidates recommend the names of such candidates upto the number of vacancies reserved for them CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //10// from amongst those who have qualified for interview, even if they fail to obtain the minimum marks in viva-voce prescribed above.” “(6) After the existing rule 20, the following new rule shall be added, namely : “20A- Retotality of marks: (1) The Commission may order retotalling of the marks obtained by a candidate during such period as may be decided by the Commission in their discretion on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the Commission from time to time but evaluation of the answer paper shall not be re-examined. (2) The Commission may take steps to rectify such mistakes as are detected on retotalling of the marks in pursuance of the provisions of sub-rule (1). (3) If as a result of such rectification the Commission discovers that the candidates becomes eligible for selection, such fact shall be immediately and in the case not later than 40 days from the announcement of the result reported to the Government and to that extent the recommendation of the Commission made under rule 20 shall stand protanto modified.” From the amendments (supra), it clearly emerges that the posts of District Education Officer (Boys/Girls), Deputy Director (Junior) CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //11// Vice Principal, IASE, Ajmer/Professor, IASE Ajmer/Bikaner, are included in Schedule III to the Rules, 1970 and prior to amendment (supra), they were to be filled 100% by promotion and by virtue of amendment (supra), posts referred to are to be filled in 50% by direct recruitment & 50% by promotion and the amendment notification dt.01/04/1998 provides method of selection in regard to direct recruitment and amendments were made to carry out procedure in making appointments for such posts through open selection. Rule 19A was added only to meet out procedure of direct recruitment laid down for the posts referred to in proviso to R.16 pursuant to amendment notification dt.01/04/1998. A bare look at the amendments (supra) makes it explicitly clear that amendment notification on which much stress was laid on behalf of petitioners is not even remotely concerned with the posts of lecturer (School Education) impugned herein and what has been referred to in amendment notification is included in Schedule III appended to the Rules, 1970. In other words, posts other than those referred to in amendment notification dt.01/04/1998 are to be filled in as per procedure as provided under Scheme of Rules, 1970 and not pursuant to amendment notification dt.01/04/1998. CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //12// However, under Rule 18A which has been added to existing R.18 vide amendment notification dt.01/04/1998; a reference has been made of holding competitive examination for the post of District Education Officer (Boys/Girls) and other equivalent post, for which much stress has been laid on behalf of petitioners but such posts are those which are equivalent to the post referred to therein viz. District Education Officer (Boys/Girls); but the posts in regard to teaching courses appended to Rules, 1970 are in no manner can be considered to be other equivalent posts as referred to in R.18A added vide amendment notification (supra). Thus, in considered opinion of this Court, R.19A added vide amendment notification (supra) after existing R.19 has no application in regard to process of interview based selection initiated by the PSC for the post of Lecturer (School Education) pursuant to impugned advertisement. Main thrust of the submission made on behalf of petitioners that the marks which they obtained in written test (screening test as the PSC calls it), are not being added while preparation of final select list taking assistance of R.19A of Rules, 1970, is wholly without substance and stands rejected. Under the Scheme of the Rules, 1970, as observed (supra), the process of selection impugned CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //13// herein is based only on the interview and a condition was incorporated in advertisement dt.10/05/2008 of holding screening test with a stipulation that if a large number of applications are received against vacancies advertised, the PSC reserves its right to hold a screening test for short listing the candidates for being called in interview process in the ratio of 1:3. Cl.4 of Essential Note appended to advertisement dt.10/05/2008 being relevant is quoted ad infra: "4. संवी¢ा परȣ¢ा का माह, ःथान एवं योजना :- "िनधा[ǐरत अिनवाय[ योÊयताएं Ûयूनतम है और इन योÊयताओ के होने से हȣ अßयथȸ सा¢ा×कार हेतु बुलाये जाने के हकदार नहȣ हो जाते है. जब Ǒकसी ǒव£ापन के आधार पर ूाƯ आवेदन पऽो कȧ संÉया अिधक होगी और आयोग के िलए इन सभी अßयिथ[यो का सा¢ा×कार करना सुǒवधाजनक या संभव नहȣं होगा, तो आयोग ǒव£ापन मɅ िनधा[ǐरत Ûयूनतम योÊयताओं और अनुभव के आधार पर अथवा संवी¢ा परȣ¢ा Ʈारा सा¢ा×कार हेतु अßयिथ[यो कȧ संÉया यथोिचत सीमा तक कम कर सकता है.” Since a large number of candidates applied for, pursuant to Cl.VI(4) of advertisement (supra), the PSC took decision to hold a screening test for short-listing candidates in the ratio of 1:3 and all the petitioners knowing it fully well about afore quoted condition stipulated in Cl.VI(4) to the advertisement, had appeared in the screening test and on being qualified therein, appeared for interview in the ratio of 1:3 but since their names were not found suitable in course CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //14// of interview while preparing final select list. None of the petitioners herein has questioned process of interview and their grievance is that since marks obtained in the written test be added in the total marks obtained in the interview while preparation of select list pursuant to advertisement impugned, which is wholly without substance. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Usha Sharma Vs State (supra) had an occasion to examine R.19 of Rules, 1970 and has also taken note of Cl.IV (supra) stipulated in advertisement for holding screening test; and taking note of decision of Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Manjit Singh (2003(1) SCC 559) observed ad infra: "17. We, therefore, hold that the written test (screening test as the Commission calls it) to shortlist candidates does not suffer any legal infirmity. If the Commission had taken into consideration the marks obtained in the written examination for assessing the merit of the candidates, they would have acted in contravention of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970." Rr.19 & 20 of the Rules, 1970 read ad infra: “19. Scrutiny of applications – The Commission shall scrutinize the applications received by them and require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these rules as CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //15// seem to them desirable to appear before them for interview: Provided that the decision of the Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate, shall be final.” “20. Recommendations of the Commission: - The commission shall prepare a list of the candidates, whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned, arrange in order of merit and forward the same to the appointing authority: Provided that the Commission may also to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in order of merit to the appointing authority within 6 months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the appointing authority.” Even as per R.19, it would show that the PSC has to scrutinize the applications so received and require the qualified candidates for appointment as may be found desirable to appear for interview and to achieve the object of R.19 where number of applications exceed three times the vacancies so advertised, in the light whereof, a specific clause VI(4) was stipulated in the advertisement itself, impugned herein, for holding screening test, as such holding of such test by the PSC, in instant case, was for short-listing the CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //16// candidates, which cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. Contrarily, the process of selection, which the PSC has adopted pursuant to advertisement impugned herein, is in conformity with the procedure provided under Part IV of Rules, 1970. Judgments on which Counsel for petitioners placed reliance for holding written test as a part of process of selection, being one of modes laid down under Service Rules, are not of any assistance being not applicable in the fact situation of the instant case. The decision in Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) was a case where the Commission has recognised written examination as also viva voce test being a part of process of selection while making recruitment to the post of Block Development & Panchayat Officer and where the examination held was not for the purposes of short listing the candidates. Judgment in Ku. Rashmi Mishra Vs. MP PSC (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioners in the fact situation of instant case for the reason that it was a case where the appeal was dismissed as regards process of selection impugned therein; however, the State Government was directed to consider desirability of amending the Rules suitably; inasmuch as it was a case where the Rules CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //17// enabled the Commission to hold a written examination and the marks obtained therein were not taken into consideration, and despite that no interference was made. Consequently, writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed alongwith stay petitions as per Schedule annexed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p17/ 9283CW2010RsrDec3Schul-Lctur(42).doc CW 9283/10 (School Lecturer) //18// Schedule to Judgment dt.03/12/2010 in CWP-9283/2010 & Cognate cases *** S.No. CWP/Stay Pet.Nos. / Name of Petitioners/ Versus 1. 9283/2010 (2762/10) Satyanarayan Gupta & Ors Versus State & Ors 2. 8530/2010 (2100/10) Shyam Sunder Jangir & Ors Versus State & Ors 3. 8537/2010 (2106/10) Sarita Choudhary & Ors Versus State & Ors 4. 8577/2010 (2142/10) Naveen Kumar & Ors Versus State & Ors 5. 8584/2010 (2149/10) Ravindar Kumar Sharma Versus State & Anr 6. 8851/2010 (2397/10) Swati Yadav & Ors Versus State & Ors 7. 8857/2010 (2402/10) Ajay Kumar Yadav & Ors Versus State & Ors 8. 9204/2010 (2699/10) Harish Kumar Sharma & Ors Versus State & Anr 9. 9368/2010 (2838/10) Ram Ratan Rinwa & Ors Versus State & Ors 10.10129/2010 (3536/10) Sanjeev Kumar & Ors Versus State & Ors 11.10314/2010 (3707/10) Shailendra Kumar Saini Versus State & Ors 12.10568/2010 (3924/10) Nidhi Mishra Versus State & Anr 13.10669/2010 (4016/10) Manju Fagaria Versus State & Anr 14.10684/2010 (4029/10) Sajjan Singh Yadav & Ors Versus State & Anr 15.10797/2010 (4131/10) Surendra Kumar Poonia & Ors Versus State & Anr 16.10820/2010 (4150/10) Rajendra Singh Versus State & Ors 17.10821/2010 (4151/10) Indrajeet Yadav Versus State & Ors 18.10822/2010 (4152/10) Deshraj Gurjar Versus State & Ors 19.10846/2010 (4177/10) Santosh Kumar Sharma & Ors Versus State & Ors 20.10869/2010 (4197/10) Anita Krisnia Versus State & Anr 21.10870/2010 (4198/10) Rameshwari Devi Versus State & Anr 22.10887/2010 (4213/10) Dhanmitra Meena & Anr Versus State & Anr 23.11122/2010 (4394/10) Vishwas Arrawatia Versus State & Ors 24.11172/2010 (4429/10) Ramraj Chandel Versus State & Ors 25.11322/2010 (4546/10) Munvvar Aara Versus State & Anr 26.11482/2010 (9174/10) Dharmendra Palsania Versus State & Anr 27.11566/2010 (4756/10) Praveen Kumar Versus State & Anr 28.11577/2010 (4764/10) Chetna Rajawat & Ors Versus RPSC, Ajmer & Anr 29.11581/2010 (4768/10) Pushplata Jakhar Versus State & Anr 30.11666/2010 (4830/10) Ravi Versus State & Anr 31.11672/2010 (4834/10) Om Prakash Versus State & Ors 32.11703/2010 (4860/10) Gajraj Singh Versus State & Anr 33.11710/2010 (4864/10) Shaitan Mal Jat & Ors Versus State & Anr 34.11768/2010 (4904/10) Shiv Kanwar Versus State & Ors 35.12089/2010 (5142/10) Suman Versus State & Ors 36.12093/2010 (5146/10) Om Kanwar Rathore Versus State & Anr 37.12302/2010 (5311/10) Ashok Kumar Choudhary Versus RPSC & Anr 38.12323/2010 (5327/10) Mahesh Chand Yadav Versus State & Ors 39.5439/2008 (nil) Sunil Kumar Jain Versus State & Anr 40.12681/2010 (nil) Narendra Kumar Meena Versus State & Anr 41.12706/2010 (5663/10) Mukesh Kumar Meena Versus State & Anr 42.13185/2010 (6041/10) Dinesh Mangal & Ors Versus State & Ors (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p18/ 9283CW2010RsrDec3Schul-Lctur(42).doc