DINESH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four writ petitions, involving similar and akin issues in relation to the same process of direct recruitment under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 ('the Rules of 1989'), are taken up for disposal by this common order.

(2.) THE relevant background aspects are that in response to an advertisement dated 25.11.2010, as issued by the Rajathan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, the petitioners of these writ petitions offered their candidature for the post of Sub-Inspector under the Rules of 1989. The petitioners appeared in the written examination for the recruitment in question and having secured the necessary qualifying marks, were called to appear in the physical efficiency test. As per the process of recruitment delineated in Rule 21 of the Rules of 1989, the candidates who are declared successful in the written test and in the physical efficiency test are eligible for aptitude test and interview but the number of candidates to be called in such aptitude test and interview is to be restricted to three times the number of vacancies by way of the merit prepared on the aggregate marks obtained in the written and physical efficiency test. The petitioners having failed to secure the requisite position in the merit so prepared, have not been found eligible for interview.

(3.) THE sum and substance of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners is that proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 21 ibid., whereby the candidates are to be called for interview on the basis of aggregate of marks obtained in written test and physical efficiency test is ultra vires; and the basis of this contention is the provision as contained in sub-rule (7) of Rule 21 ibid. whereby, the marks awarded in the interview are added only to the marks obtained in the written test and not to the physical efficiency test for final merit. We are unable to agree with the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioners that only for the reason that the marks awarded in the physical efficiency test are not counted in the final merit, the proviso to sub-rule (6) is required to be declared invalid.