DHIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Dhirendra Singh, who is a Scheduled Caste candidate with the prayer that the action of the respondents in not calling the petitioner for interview and not selecting him for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police be declared arbitrary and illegal and the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment declaring result of the petitioner on the basis of written examination as well as interview. The facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement on 25.11.2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment on 34 posts of Sub-Inspector under Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. Petitioner applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement and participated in the competitive examination. He qualified the examination and thereafter he was called for the physical efficiency test and qualified therein. It was thereafter that the respondents by letter dt. 26.6.2012 called the petitioner to appear for the interview on 6.9.2012 at 9.00 AM. The result was declared on 3.2.2012. Thereafter, it appears that certain objections/representations were received by the respondents with regard to inaccuracy/mistakes in several questions/answers of the written examination held by them and number of writ petitions were filed before this Court. This Court while disposing of those writ petitions, directed the respondent-RPSC to constitute an expert committee to examine all such objections. Pursuant to the recommendation of the expert committee, certain questions/answers were varied/deleted/changed and thereafter the revised answer key was prepared on 5.12.2012 and on that basis, revised result was declared on 30.10.2012. Thereafter, result was again revised and was declared on 21.12.2012. The respondents invited certain new candidates to face the interview, who were earlier not called.

(2.) Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents have wrongly interpreted Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, inasmuch the respondents have wrongly not selected the petitioner on the assumption that he has not Figured within the candidates three times the number of vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste to be called for the interview.

(3.) Learned counsel in this connection referred to sub-rule (3) of Rule 21, supra, which provides that a candidate who obtains 36 percent marks in each paper and 40 percent in the aggregate, shall be deemed to qualify examination conducted by the Commission. It is argued that petitioner has qualified that requirement and has secured 286.61 marks in SC category. However, candidates lower in merit than him in this category have been selected due to faulty interpretation of Rule 21 made by the respondents. Learned counsel has invited attention of the Court towards the table given in para 7 of the reply to the writ petition giving particulars of the SC category candidates, who have been selected with lesser marks than the petitioner.