1 1. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14000/2009 Ms.Yogita Pareek V/s Rajasthan Public Service Commission & ors. 2. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14002/2009 Ms.Shalini Sharma V/s Rajasthan Public Service Commission & ors. 3. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16003/2009 Manoj Kumar Nimoriya V/s Rajasthan Public Service Commission & anr. 21.12.2010 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Arun Mishra Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Bhagwati Mr.Kapil Gupta ) Mr.Sushil Pujari for Mr.D.P.Pujari)-for petitioners. Mr.Prashant Sharma ) Mr.Ashok Gaur ) Mr.S.N.Kumawat,Addl.Advocate General)for respondents. These are matters of scaling in the RJS examinations 2005. The matters travelled upto the Supreme Court and stand concluded. The Apex Court has finally granted relief on whatever seats were vacant. In R.P.S.C. V/s Balveer Singh Jat & ors. (Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).2580/2010), the Apex Court has passed the following order on 5.5.2010:- “Leave granted. In 2005, Rajasthan Public Service Commission conducted test for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 87 candidates were selected and they were appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in 2007. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission had adopted a method of scaling for the purpose of assessment of answer sheets. Because of this, some of the candidates who had obtained less raw marks which were sealed up were 2 called for interview and subsequently selected and appointed. Therefore series of writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the scaling method adopted by the Public Service Commission. The High Court by the impugned judgment has given certain directions and held that the fresh interviews of the candidates to be taken based on their raw marks obtained by them. As regards the candidates who have been already appointed by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the High Court held that their appointments shall not be disturbed. Now, pursuant to the directions of the High Court, it appears that 8 candidates who had already undergone interview secured more marks than the candidates who were already appointed to the Judicial Service based on raw marks and six other candidates namely, Sarita Noushad, Ashutuosh Kumawat, Rajant Khatri, Toshita Verma, Sarita Dhakad and Divya Singh were not subjected to interview though they have got higher raw marks. They have to be interviewed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. If any one of them is found to be eligible, such candidates are also entitled to get appointment. Eight candidates who had already secured more marks than, the last candidate appointed, should be considered for appointment. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to conduct interview of above named six candidates within period of three weeks. The eight candidates who had already undergone interview, need not be interviewed again. Final list of eligible candidates based on the marks secured by the candidates who were already interviewed and are to be interviewed, shall be prepared and from the said list appointments on nine vacant posts shall be made in order of merits. We are told that the names of the candidates who were already selected in 2008 are sent for appointment to the Government. Naturally, the appointments pursuant to this order would take place after the appointments of the candidates selected in 2008 but they will be entitled to get seniority after their appointments. The civil appeals are disposed of accordingly. SLP(C) No.6569/2010 W.P.(C) No.102/2010, W.P.(C) No.113/2010 W.P.(C) No.114/2010, W.P.(C) No.134/2010 W.P.(C) No.142/2010, W.P.(C) No.146/2010 and W.P.(C) No.128/2010 All the writ petitions filed under Article 32 in respect of the years 2005 and 2008 and special leave petition(c) No.6569 of 2010 are dismissed as withdrawn.” The Supreme Court has granted relief to only 9 candidates as only 9 posts were vacant. In the 3 advertisement, there was a condition that vacancies were temporary one and subject to the continuation of promotions on adhoc basis in fast track courts. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid condition was mentioned in the appointment orders of the candidates and when the matter came up before the Apex Court, the Apex Court was informed that there were 9 vacant posts. Hence, the Apex Court has ordered for appointment of 9 candidates only out of 14 candidates and those incumbents have been mentioned in the order passed by the Apex Court. Thereafter, in the contempt matter, which is pending before the Apex Court, the Apex Court has observed that there were petitions/review petitions which were filed by several candidates, who also claimed similar treatment on the basis of their merit. The petitions have been dismissed by the Apex Court. The following observations have been made by the Apex Court in the order dated 6.12.2010 passed in Contempt Petition (c) Nos.283-284 of 2010 Sarita Noushad & anr. V/s S.D.Tak and anr.:- "So far as condition No.2 is concerned, it is mentioned therein that the appointment of the nine candidates would be subject to the final decision of the Division Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3310 of 2007 which is pending in the Rajasthan High Court as per order dated 6.8.2010. The order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the Division Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3310 of 2007 is produced at Annexure R1/10 along with affidavit filed by the respondent No.1. In the concluding paragraph of the said order it is observed as under - "In view of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as contained in the order dated 5.5.2010 and the facts as stated by RPSC, though at present we are not inclined to issue interim mandamus to the effect that the petitioner be called out for interview at this stage but then having regard to the over all circumstances we are of the opinion that 4 interest of justice shall be served if it is observed that the fresh appointments pertaining to the selections for the year 2005 shall remain subject to the final decision of this Writ Petition and it is enjoined upon respondents to put a statement to this effect in the select list published or to be published and in the consequential appointments. Ordered accordingly." Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 had, after reading the above quoted order and on instructions of the respondents, mentioned that in view of the order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench, there was no option for the respondents but to incorporate condition No.2 in the appointment letters. Thereupon, this Court had pointed out that the order dated May 5, 2010 passed by three Judge Bench of this Court was very much before the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court who had passed the order dated 6.8.2010 and it would not be fair to suggest to them that though they had read the order dated May 5, 2010 passed by this Court they had made the order of the Supreme Court subject to the order to be passed by them in a writ petition pending before them. The meaningful reading of the order dated 6.8.2010 makes it evident that what is observed by the Division Bench is that fresh appointments which may be made subsequently after the passing of the order dated 5.5.2010 would be subject to the result of the writ petition pending before the Division Bench. This position being pointed out, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 had immediately reacted and stated that the order of the Supreme Court can never be made subject the order to be passed by the High Court and after taking instructions from the respondents, Shri Sorabjee had stated at the Bar that condition No.1, mentioned in the appointment order dated 29.11.2010 shall also be deleted while issuing joining orders to the nine candidates. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 had stated at the Bar that joining orders, without mentioning/incorporating the two conditions stated in appointment order dated 29.11.2010, shall be issued to the nine candidates within two weeks from today and prayed to adjourn the matter to 11.1.2011. In view of the statements made at the Bar, by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1, the respondents are hereby directed to issue joining orders to the nine candidates whose names are mentioned in the appointment order dated 29.11.2010, without mentioning the two conditions, incorporated in the appointment order dated 29.11.2010 within two weeks from today. As prayed for, the matters are adjourned to 11.1.2011. What is relevant to notice is that the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by this Court was before the 5 High Court and therefore, it is wrong to interpret that the appointments which were to be made pursuant to order dated 5.5.2010 were subject to the result of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.3310 of 2007. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that by order dated May 5, 2010 passed by three Judge Bench of this Court, one SLP and seven writ petitions directly filed in this Court claiming appointments pursuant to the test conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission in 2005, were dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequent writ petitions/review petitions are also dismissed by this Court. Therefore, the respondent No.2 should bring to the notice of the Division Bench hearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3310 of 2007. The Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court for information." In view of the aforesaid fact that the candidates higher in merit have approached the Apex Court on the basis of raw marks and their petitions have not been entertained and the matter stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court, review petitions were also dismissed and no seat of the year in question is vacant, we are not inclined to make any interference in these matters. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in Dharmendra Sharma V/s Rajasthan Public Service Commission & anr. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16001/2009 decided on 6.8.2010 alongwith connected matters), a direction has been issued by this Court to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to follow the decision of the Apex Court in Balveer Singh Jat's case (supra). The decision in the case of Balveer Singh Jat (supra) rendered by the Apex Court is clear. There is no scope for giving any relief to any other candidate except given by the Apex Court. Thus, the decision of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Sharma (supra) is of no help. Simply directing that the decision of the Apex 6 Court be followed cannot advance the cause espoused by the petitioners, rather the decision of the Apex Court counters the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. (Mahesh Bhagwati)J. (Arun Mishra)C.J. Parmar