MAHENDRA KUMAR SHANDILYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') issued Notification dated 30.5.2012 for Rajasthan State Eligibility Test for Lectureship, 2012 (for short 'SET'). The petitioners applied for the test and remained successful by obtaining minimum marks as prescribed for different categories and different papers. They were not granted certificate of eligibility as the Commission prescribed separate cut off marks for it. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that while the notification was issued by the Commission for SET, minimum marks for different papers and for different categories were prescribed. For general category, one was required, to obtain minimum 40% marks in Paper-I and Paper-II and 50% marks for Paper-III, whereas, for OBC/SBC/SC/ST/PH and VH, minimum marks were 35% for Paper I and II and for Paper III, 45% for OBC and SBC and 40% marks for SC/ST/PH and VH categories. The respondents after holding the test, issued marks sheet where all the petitioners obtained more marks than the minimum. They were, however, shocked to notice subject-wise cut off marks for declaring a candidate to have passed the test. The action of the respondents to keep separate cut off marks for final result is thus challenged.

(2.) It is alleged that without providing criteria for cut off marks, while issuing advertisement/notification or under the rules, the RPSC should not be allowed to declare petitioners to be unsuccessful in the test. The respondents should have provided criteria for final qualifying marks while issuing the advertisement and not subsequent to declaration of the result. Hence, action of the respondents may be declared to be arbitrary and in violation of the conditions of advertisement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that while issuing advertisement, para 8 was inserted to notify scheme of the test. As per the scheme, one was required to obtain minimum marks in each paper and, thereupon, such candidates were to be considered for final preparation of the result. The aforesaid was mentioned in the advertisement thus there exist no arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. The minimum passing marks as provided in para 8 of the advertisement was for consideration of candidates for final result. In view of above, respondents provided cut off marks for different categories and subjects which cannot be said to be in violation of the terms of the advertisement.