LALIT BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction for declaration that he is eligible to be considered against the quota reserved for non-gazetted employees in the combined competitive examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, in which the petitioner had appeared, in 1987-88 under Roll No. 45837. The last paper of this examination was held on 4th Jan., 1988. Al,though, in the application form, which the petitioner has filed, he has stated that the petitioner had earlier appeared as a general candidate for State Service in the year 1979-80 and 1982-83 and had also appeared in the year 1977-78 for subordinate services, later on, he submitted an application before the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 12th Jan., 1988, mentioning there in that he had appeared earlier and availed three chances in State Service quota as per the information gathered from the available record for the years 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1982-83. Therefore, he requested that the earlier mention made by him in the record of the petitioner be rectified. The petitioner then sent a letter dated 16th June, 1988 again making a mention about the attempts availed by the petitioner earlier and, there after he was served with letter dated 30th June, 1988 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission asking him to furnish the roll No. of earlier examinations as well as true copies of the mark-sheets etc. The petitioner submits that he is not in possession of Roll Nos. and copies of the mark-sheets for the period in which he appeared in the examination held in the years 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1982-83. He submitted a letter dated 9th July, 1988 to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission making a mention that he had appeared in the competitive examination held in the years 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1982-83 from Bikaner centre and the rest of the information was not available with the petitioner. On these facts, he requested that his candidature may be considered against reserved quota for non-gazetted employees. The petitioner then sent letter, Annexure/3, to the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 9th July,. 1988. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission sent yet another letter on 20th Aug., 1988 to the petitioner requiring him to furnish information with regard to Roll No., No. of chances availed by him and photostat copies of the marked- sheets issued to him by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. But the petitioner failed to furnish any information. There after the petitioner submitted yet another application dated 4th Oct., 1988, before the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer reiterating his request.

(2.) In the reply, which has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, RPSC, it has been categorically stated that as per the petitioner's own application form, it is borne out that the petitioner had availed two chances in the combine competitive examinations for the State Service in the year 1979-80 and 1982-83 and for the Subordinate Service, the petitioner has availed another chance in the year 1977,78. Thus, the petitioner has not availed all the three chances for the State Service; and one chance as an open market candidate is still available to the petitioner for the State Service. In para 7 of the reply, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has mentioned as under :

(3.) I have gone through the pleadings and the relevant documents annexed with the writ petition and reply. The petitioner has failed to place on record any material so as to show that he had appeared in the year 1977-78 from the Bikaner Centre for State Service. According to his own application form of the present examination which has been placed on record by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Annexure R/3 it is clear that the petitioner has appeared only twice for the State Service i.e. in the year 1979-80 and 1982-1983 and one chance of appearing for the State Service by combined competitive examination was still available with him. Shri Khan has placed reliance on Rule 4(2) of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962 and has submitted that so long as any chance is available to a candidate so as to appear as open market candidate, he cannot appear against the quota reserved for non-gaztted employees. Shri Khan submits that the petitioner now seeks to change the stand as an after-thought to say that he had appeared three times for State Service and, this stand has been taken only to seek the benefit of the quota reserved for non- gazetted employees. It has also been submitted by Shri Khan that notice has already been given to the petitioner for taking action against him for misleading the Rajasthan Public Service Com,mission. I find that the petitioner has not been able to place any material what so ever to show that he had appeared in the year 1977-78 for State Service and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has clearly mentioned that one chance to appear in the State Subordinate Service is still available to the credit of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is difficult for this Court to hold that in fact the petitioner has not availed all the three chances for appearing in the State Service and there is no document or contemporaneous record, in respect of the petitioner, to show that he has already availed three chances in the State Service and now he can be considered against the quota reserved for non-gazetted employees. Shri Khan has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case since the matter is as old as of 1977-78, all that can be done by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is to drop the matter as it is, with regard to the taking of any action against the petitioner by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, because in the absence of the original record, this matter cannot be taken to its logical end. In these circumstances, it is recorded, as submitted by Shri Khan, that no action against the petitioner will send any more and the same shall be dropped. However, so far as the petitioner is concerned, in the absence of adequate material, it cannot be held that he has appeared thrice for the State Services and, as such, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.