MANOJ KUMAR SONI Vs. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an applicant in response to advertisement issued on 19. 12. 98 by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (herein after to be called as "rpsc") for the direct recruitment in Rajasthan Judicial Services i. e. on the post of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate under Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 1955. The qualification required for the eligible candidate to appear in RJS examination was to be Law Graduate from any recognised University with the minimum three years experience as a lawyer. The petitioner applied for the same. He was issued admission card with Roll No. 100276 to appear in the RJS examination, 1998. He was asked to file an affidavit to the effect that he had three years experience in the capacity of Legal Assistant by appearing in Courts or Judicial Tribunals upto the date of receipt of form i. e. 9. 4. 1999. It was stated in annexure-3, that he would only be entitled to appear in the examination if he files such an affidavit. In response to annexure-3, the petitioner is said to have filed the affidavit to the effect that he had actual experience of an Advocate for two years and ten days i. e. from 22. 11. 95 to 31. 12. 97 and that from 2. 1. 98 he has been working as Legal Assistant in the office of Director, Medical & Health department. He mentioned in the affidavit that in the capacity of Legal Assistant he had been appearing and prosecuting the cases in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Churu upto 31. 12. 97 and from 2. 1. 98 he had been prosecution the cases as Legal Assistant on behalf of the department, as such he had got the experience of more than three years upto 9. 4. 99.

(2.) APART from above and as a proof of the fact that he had been appearing in the cases on behalf of the department, he had also filed the letter dated 15. 7. 98 (ann. 6) issued by Dy. Legal Remumberance, Medical Department, Jaipur. He had also produced certain order sheets of the Tribunal where his presence was marked. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 3. 8. 99 (ann. 9) by RPSC on the ground that from the affidavit filed by petitioner, it was not clear whether he had been prosecuting the cases before the Tribunal or not. Against the cancellation of candidature of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) MEANING thereby, the petitioner had prosecuting the cases by assisting the Advocate of the department in regard to departmental rules, bye laws and latest authorities and discussing the matter with such Advocate. He had also attended the appellate Tribunal to ensure the legal proceedings. It is no where mentioned in the affidavit that the petitioner had argued any matter or had been arguing the matters of the department. Even though, the copies of the order sheets/judgments of Tribunal have been produced, but his presence has been marked as appearing along with the Advocate of department. In no case the petitioner had argued on behalf of the department.