MORDHWAJ SINGH Vs. RPSC AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed these writ petitions questioning the process of selection adopted by the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer (School Education) by holding interview and reserving 20 marks for academic qualification and 80 marks for the interview, out of 100 marks. It is submitted that the process of awarding the marks in interview ignoring the opinion/marks of the subject expert is bad in law and due weightage should be given to the marks given by the subject experts. The prayer has also been made to set aside the appointments made. In the alternative, the prayer has been made to declare the Rule 19, 19A and Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 or any other rule which may come in the way of considering marks secured in the written examination, to be ultravires. Fresh recruitment process may be ordered to be initiated with selection criteria of considering marks secured both in the written examination and in the interview allocating upto 12.2% marks to the interview only.

(2.) It is averred in the Writ Petition No.7316/10 "Mordhwaj Singh & Ors. Vs. RPSC & Anr." that a select list of 222 Lecturers (School Education) has been issued pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.5.08. The Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 ("the Rules of 1970" hereinafter) prescribe two modes of appointment; one by way of direct recruitment and other by way of promotion in accordance with the provisions of Part-IV & V respectively of the Rules of 1970 for the post in question i.e. Lecturer (School Education). The petitioners being eligible applied for the posts which were advertised pursuant to advertisement dated 10.5.08. The number of posts was increased by way of issuing corrigendum. The petitioners are having qualification of Ph.D., M.Phil, SLET, NET, JRF etc. A written test was to be conducted as mentioned in the advertisement for the purpose of screening to reduce the number of candidates for the purpose of interview. It was also mentioned in the advertisement that the screening test was to be conducted at Ajmer. It was also mentioned that the screening test examination may be objective type or descriptive type. It was not mentioned in the advertisement that whether the marks obtained in screening test will not be taken into consideration while preparing the final result. The RPSC conducted the screening test by prescribing question paper which was objective type of 100 marks and provision for negative marking was also made. It is submitted that the respondent RPSC declared the select list only on the basis of the marks obtained in the interview and academic qualification. The marks obtained in the written examination held for the purpose of screening were not added. The petitioners have submitted that the marks obtained in the screening test ought to have been added. The RPSC has failed to conduct the process of selection in fair and transparent manner. The selection process is contrary to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Rules 19, 19A, 20 & 20A of the Rules of 1970. The petitioners have emphasized on due compliance of the provisions contained in Rule 19A of the Rules of 1970. It is averred that the selection by way of interview is great hazardous. Hence the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.

(3.) In the reply filed by the State Government in Writ Petition No.7097/10, it is contended that selections have been made as per the Rules. The amendments which have been made on 1.4.98 were with a view to prescribe the mode for direct recruitment for the post of DEO and other equivalent post. Rules 18A, 19A, 20 and 20A of the Rules of 1970 were accordingly added. The procedure has been prescribed in Rule 16 to 20 of the Rules of 1970. The appointments have been made following the procedure prescribed in the rules. An additional affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State further clarifying that the amendments in Rules 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 19A, 20 & 20A were made with a view to prescribe competitive examination for direct recruitment to the post of District Education Officer and equivalent post. The amendment made in the year 1998 was not in respect to the post of Lecturer. The respondent RPSC has also filed an affidavit in which it has been mentioned that the screening test was conducted so as to call requisite number of candidates for the purpose of interview and the sole criteria for selection was interview as per the prevailing rules. The mode of selection by holding interview has been earlier adopted pursuant to the advertisement No.02/2001-02 dated 8.6.01 and again advertisement No.03/2004-05 dated 18.8.04. The mode of selection in the impugned advertisement dated 10.5.08 was also same as adopted in earlier advertisements. The rules as amended in the year 1998 were prevailing. Now the rules have been amended in the year 2011 and different procedure has been prescribed i.e. written competitive examination for direct recruitment, earlier it was not so.