RAJENDRA KRISHNA PAREEK VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6397/06) 1 RAJENDRA KRISHNA PAREEK VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6397/06) Dated: 23.4.09. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Dr.Sachin Acharya,for the petitioner. Mr. Khet Singh on behalf of Mr. J.P.Joshi for the respondents. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred as “RPSC”) to produce the answer sheets of the petitioner of the written examination conducted for recruitment on the post of Lecturer(Hindi) and/or to get the answer sheet of petitioner checked by an expert committee. The petitioner has also challenged clause 10 of the Instructions issued by the RPSC providing for conducting of the screening test to short list the candidates to be called for interview. 2. The brief facts of the case for the present purpose are that the RPSC issued an advertisement for various posts of Lecturer and Coach in School Education for various subjects. The petitioner being eligible applied for the post of Lecturer(Hindi). A large number of candidates applied for the posts advertised and therefore, a screening test i.e. written examination was conducted by the RPSC. According to the petitioner, he did his best in the written examination and was having every hope of getting success in it. However, the petitioner could not qualify RAJENDRA KRISHNA PAREEK VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6397/06) 2 the written examination. The petitioner raised his grievances by way of representation to the Secretary, RPSC but to no avail. Hence, this petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that clause 10 of the Important Instructions issued by the RPSC providing for conducting of the written examination is dehors the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 ( in short “the Rules of 1970” hereinafter) inasmuch as, the Rules of 1970 nowhere provides for conducting a written examination, it only provides for scrutiny of the application received and the same can be done only by way of taking the educational qualification and/or the practical experience into account. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner appeared in the examination and solved the written paper in easy manner as he is having a brilliant academic record in the subjects. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner did the written examinations very well and therefore, his result declared by the RPSC seems to be completely against the answers submitted in the written paper. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was awarded Gold Medal by the Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur in the year 1998 in Bachelors' Degree in Arts and he did M.A. in Hindi in the year 2000 wherein he secured 64.77% marks and stood at third rank in the University. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the RAJENDRA KRISHNA PAREEK VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6397/06) 3 academic back ground of the petitioner by itself is clear enough to suggest that some mistake is committed by the RPSC in checking the answer sheets of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent RPSC may be directed to produce the answer sheets before this court and the same be got checked by an expert committee. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent RPSC submitted that Rule 19 of the Rules of 1970 lays down a procedure for scrutiny of the application of eligible candidates to be called for interview, however, the RPSC can evolve its own procedure to short list the candidates to be invited for interview. The learned counsel submitted that a large number of applications were received by the RPSC and it was not possible to invite all candidates for interview therefore, the screening test conducted by the RPSC to short list the candidates cannot be faulted with. The learned counsel submitted that there is no provision of rechecking therefore, the question of rechecking of the answer sheet of the petitioner by the expert committee does not arise. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1970 , the Commission shall scrutinise the applications received by them and require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these Rules as seem RAJENDRA KRISHNA PAREEK VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6397/06) 4 to them desirable to appear before them for interview. As per provisions to Rule 19, the decision of the RPSC as to eligibility or otherwise of a candidate shall be final. Rule 19 nowhere provides that all the persons who have applied for the post having requisite qualification must be called for interview. To the contrary, in terms of the provisions of Rule 19 , the RPSC can restrict the number of candidates to be called for interview as seem to them desirable. In this view of the matter, looking to the large number of applications received , the method of written examination evolved by the RPSC to short list the candidates to be invited for interview cannot be said to be dehors the Rules of 1970. Moreover, the petitioner who has appeared in the written examination conducted with the knowledge that for the selection he has to qualify the written examination, on being unsuccessful in the same cannot be permitted to turn round and challenge the said clause of the Instructions providing for screening test to short list the candidates to be called for interview. Thus, the challenge of the petitioner to clause 10 of the Instructions has no substance. 7. Admittedly, under the Rules of 1970 or the Instructions issued, there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer books rechecked. Therefore, in absence of any provision providing for re-evaluation of the answer sheets the petitioner has no right to claim re-evaluation thereof. Even otherwise, no RAJENDRA KRISHNA PAREEK VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6397/06) 5 such directions can be issued by the court which is bound to delay the recruitment process unnecessarily. The reliance in this regard may be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Bihar Public Service Commission”, (2004) 6 SCC, 714. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The selection process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement already stands completed . None of the selected candidates is party respondent in the writ petition . No order adversely affecting the rights of the selected candidates can be passed by this court in their absence. The court cannot issue directions to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment beyond the vacancies advertised . In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for this count alone. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is absolutely devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.