TABOM YAO Vs. ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Muk Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Tagia, learned standing counsel for Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission as well as Mr. K. Ete, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel, appearing for private respondents.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this writ petition are :-

(3.) Mr. Muk Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2001, were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating the recruitment of service as specified in the schedule attached thereto and in the said Rules, no provision has been made to fix a cut-off mark in General English paper in respect of the candidates who have already been declared qualified in the preliminary examination and appeared in the Main Examination and to debar them from appearing in the viva-voce test for not being able to secure 40% marks in General English paper and also not to evaluate their answer scripts in the other subjects. According to Mr. Muk Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid Rules provide for conducting preliminary examination under Rule (f) at the first stage of the recruitment process by the Commission for screening the candidates for Main Examination and thereafter, to conduct Main Examination under Rule-2 (e) at the second stage of recruitment process, both written and viva-voce test and the petitioners having been qualified in the preliminary examination and allowed to appear in the Main Examination, the answer scripts of the petitioners should be evaluated and their eligibility should be decided on the basis of the marks secured by them. The learned counsel further submits that once a candidate has been allowed to appear in the Main Examination, the Commission is not authorized to screen the candidates further on the basis of marks secured in the General English paper and the Commission has thereby conducted the 3rd screening which is not provided in the aforesaid Rules. It is the further submission of Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the Commission is not empowered by the existing Rules to take the impugned decision dated 05.05.2007 to screen the candidates who appeared in the Main Examination on the basis of the marks in General English paper to be eligible for being called to viva-voce test. Even assuming but not admitting that the Commission has the power to take such decision under the Rules, the aforesaid decision of the Commission cannot be given effect to the present Main Examination conducted by the Commission on 26.12.2007, inasmuch as in the Newspapers' report, as aforesaid, it has been stated that the Commission has decided to introduce the qualifying mark of 40% General English paper in future Combined Civil Services Examination for recruitment of APCS (Entry Grade), etc.. This being the position, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid impugned decision cannot be applied to the ongoing recruitment process being conducted by the Commission and the same could be applied only to the future recruitment process only.