DALA RAM BHATI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of impugned judgment dtd. 8/2/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. The State Government had initiated steps for engaging Project Managers and Cluster Level Managers on contractual basis for a fixed term, which could be extended. After selection process was completed, offers of appointment were also issued to the selected candidates including the petitioner. However, before the candidates could report for duty and assume charge, the entire selection process was cancelled. This prompted the petitioner to challenge the action of the authorities. The learned Single Judge noticed that on enormous complaints, the Additional Secretary had set up enquiry and called for reports. The reports dtd. 12/9/2019 and 11/11/2019 do not indicate any major infirmity in the selection process. However, the Additional Chief Secretary made his note on 22/11/2019, in which he noticed several loopholes and infirmities in the selection process, such as some of the candidates had not written the roll numbers at correct places in the OMR sheets, some of the OMR sheets were not assessed because the sheets were not properly protected by the invigilators and results of these candidates were not declared. There was a difference in the time of examination as per the entrance card and as published in the question paper which would have a possibility of some of the candidates not being able to complete the answers and such other defects. Based on these notes, he decided to cancel the entire selection process.

(2.) The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that such selection could be cancelled if it is shown to be defective or suffering from major infirmity. Resultantly, the present writ petition and other connected writ petitions were dismissed. In the process, the learned Single Judge also referred to the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Ajay Hasia and others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others [(1981) 1 SCC 722] and Bishnu Biswas and others v. Union of India and others [(2014) 5 SCC 774] and observed that as per the said decisions, the allocation of marks for oral interviews should not exceed 15% whereas in the present case 80 marks were for written test and 20 marks were for oral interviews. Hence, the selection process was vitiated.

(3.) We are in agreement with the final decision of the learned Single Judge. The record would suggest that the Additional Secretary had noticed several defects which could distort the selection process and ultimate result of the examination conducted. The learned Single Judge noticed that the selection had to be made on the basis of written test, oral interview and group discussion, whereas there was no evidence of group discussions being conducted.