BADAN SINGH MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated October 30, 2001 whereby the services of the petitioner were discharged under Explanation (2) of Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (in short 1989 Rules).

(2.) Contextual facts depict that the petitioner came to be appointed as Sub- Inspector (AP) on probation vide order dated November 11, 1999 after being declared successful in the examination conducted by the RPSC. On December 1, 1999, the petitioner reported on duty in Rajasthan Police Academy for Basic training. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the departmental examination but out of 22 papers he failed in two papers i.e. Out door papers and Qualifying paper as well as in aggregate. The petitioner was granted second attempt to clear departmental examination but on account of illness he could not appear in the examination and was declared failed and thus discharged from the services. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have flouted the procedure prescribed under Standing Order No. 14/92 in discharging the petitioner from the services. The petitioner was entitled to appear in supplementary examination but instead he was directed to make a second attempt and for that also adequate opportunity was not provided. Very action of the respondents in calling the petitioner to avail second attempt within short span was against the mandate of Standing Order No. 14/92.

(3.) The respondents in their written reply averred that the Standing Orders are only executive directions and they cannot override the Statutory Rules. Standing Order No. 14/92 dated June 6, 1992 does not help the petitioner in any way as the petitioner could not clear the requisite examination in two attempts and he was liable to be discharged form the service. Any interpretation of the Standing Order which goes contrary to the statutory rules cannot be said to be correct. Such interpretation will make the standing orders void. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Departmental Examination) Rules, 1959 were not applicable to those services which are governed by the special rules. The employees of the police department cannot claim three chances to pass the departmental examination. The language of Rule 39(2) of the 1989 Rules is mandatory. The petitioner was given second attempt to clear the departmental examination and the date of examination was notified to him but he did not appear. The examination of firing was held on June 11, 2001. Instead of appearing in examination the petitioner left the place of his posting on June 10, 2001 and returned back on June 13, 2001. The petitioner in his application did not demand fresh chance to appear in the examination but only prayed that his presence may be recorded on June 13, 2001. As the petitioner absented himself from the examination he was rightly declared failed and in view of Explanation (2) of Rule 39 he was discharged from the service.