RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. VISHNU DATT SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These intra court appeals are filed challenging orders dtd. 8/3/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in different writ petitions, whereby, the action of the appellant-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the appellant-Public Service Commission') insofar as calling the qualified candidates for interview in connection with different recruitments without adding weightage marks towards academic performance, has been held to be illegal. Consequently, respective results declared by the appellants have been quashed with a further direction to the appellant-Public Service Commission to first add the marks of screening test/objective type test and of academics and thereafter declare the revised results and then proceed to hold interview. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge further show that though other issues were also raised, but those issues have been kept open. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that all these appeals, except D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 914/2022, arise out of orders passed in writ petitions challenging recruitment to the posts of Veterinary Officer, Assistant Agricultural Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry), Assistant Agriculture Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry), Botany, Assistant Agricultural Officer and Assistant Fisheries Development Officer, because all those cases are based on the common ground and pari materia provisions contained in respective recruitment rules, identical terms, conditions and recitals in the advertisements though for different category of posts. Further, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 914/2022 has been filed by the appellants who were writ petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14328/2020 with the prayer that the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of not deciding the prayer no. (ii)(a), (ii)(b), (ii)(c), (ii)(d) and (ii)(f) in the aforesaid writ petition be quashed and set aside and the appeal be allowed in terms of all the prayers made in the writ petition. Therefore, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for convenience, facts mentioned in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 568/2022 which arises out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14328/2020 are being taken as the lead case.

(2.) The appellant-Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 22/10/2019 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Veterinary Officer. The respondents-writ petitioners and other candidates applied for the posts. After holding an objective type test based on multiple choice, the Public Service Commission prepared and declared the result on 26/11/2020 wherein 1878 candidates were declared shortlisted for the purpose of interview. As the roll numbers of the respondents-writ petitioners did not find place in the result declared for the purpose of calling the candidates for interview, writ petitions were filed. Challenge was made to the process of selection and preparation of list of successful candidates for the purpose of calling them for interview on various grounds. According to the respondents-writ petitioners, the result was declared without issuing final answer key upon consideration of the objections to the model answer key, without issuing cut off marks for respective category, without revealing zone of consideration for the purpose of shortlisting and also without disclosing criteria of giving weightage marks for the academics. One of the main grounds to attack the process of selection and shortlisting was that the list of successful candidates for the purpose of calling them for interview was prepared without adding the weightage marks of academics to the marks secured by the candidates including the respondents-writ petitioners in the screening test/objective type test which according to the respondentswrit petitioners was against the provisions of the governing rules as contained in the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules of 1963'), the procedure for selection provided in the advertisement and otherwise arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory and unfair.

(3.) In its return, the appellant-Public Service Commission defended its action by submitting that shortlisting for the purpose of calling the candidates for interview is based on common selection process, i.e, comparative merit and the candidates were called for interview on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the objective type test. According to the appellants, the candidates were notified for interview without adding weightage marks of academics as the candidates had secured marks in their academic examinations from different institutions on variable standards which were to be added only after the candidates based on their performance in the common test were interviewed. According to the appellant-Public Service Commission, this procedure was followed by the Commission as a measure of fair treatment to all the candidates and the Public Service Commission had the power to evolve its own procedure of shortlisting the candidates for the purposes of calling them for interview which was neither in contravention of any of the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules of 1963, nor against the procedure of selection provided in the advertisement. It was also highlighted that the Public Service Commission had followed its consistent past practice. In the return, it was also disclosed that as the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test were to be finally added and the merit list was to be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test, interview including weightage marks of academics, categorywise list was also prepared.