KALU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in the writ application has questioned the constitutionality of Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, inasmuch as it provides for securing 36% minimum marks in interview. Condition 6 (d) of advertisement to the same effect has also been questioned.

(2.) The vacancies were advertised on 7.4.2008 for the post of police constable. Petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class category and is having qualification of Senior Higher Secondary. He applied for the post of Police Constable. He appeared in the written examination in which he succeeded. Call letter was sent for physical test and interview in which he appeared on 25.8.2008. Petitioner participated in the process of interview. The result of the interview was declared on 27.8.2008 at 2.30 AM at night in which he was not shown as successful. Petitioner has submitted that in view of the Standing Order dated 3.4.2008 (Annex. 7 to the writ petition), since he had knowledge of Hindi written in Devanagri Script and having knowledge of Rajasthani Culture, he ought to have been declared pass.

(3.) Reliance has been placed on decision in Vijay Kumari vs. State of Raj. & Ors., rendered by the Single Bench of this Court. The interview could not have been made the basis of sole determining factor in the selection process of the post of Police constable. Petitioner had been given 2 marks in the interview out of 10 marks whereas he got 40.125 marks in the written examination out of 50 marks and 20 marks in physical efficiency test out of 20 marks. Hence, the present petition has been filed.