LAWS(RAJ)-2005-10-18

BHAGWANA RAM CHOUDHARY Vs. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Decided On October 20, 2005
BHAGWANA RAM CHOUDHARY Appellant
V/S
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview, as the interview process is undergoing and if the interview - process is over, then the respondents may be directed to constitute a Committee to interview the petitioner and if the name of the petitioner appears in the merit list, then he may be assigned appropriate services. He has also prayed that the order dated 12. 7. 2005 may be quashed and set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the instant petition are that in response to an advertisement dated 6. 4. 2003 published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, the RPSC), inviting applications for examination of selection to various State and Subordinate Services, the petitioner applied in the prescribed application form. In the application form, the petitioner has mentioned that he belongs to Other Backward Class (OBC) category. Thereafter, the petitioner cleared the Preliminary Examination and he was permitted to take the Main Examination. The petitioner cleared the Main Examination. On 7. 6. 2005, the petitioner was informed by the RPSC that he has been declared provisional successful in the Main Examination and his personality and viva-voce test will be held on 25. 6. 2005 at 9. 30 A. M. at the Commission Office, Ajmer. He was also directed to bring all the original documents along with the latest passport size photographs. After receiving the interview call, the petitioner applied for OBC certificate which, according to the petitioner, was issued on 22. 6. 2005.

(3.) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if it is assumed that the caste certificate is required to be submitted along with the application form under the Rules, then the procedural rules are directory in nature and these Rules cannot be interpreted in such a manner so as to divest the petitioner from appearing in the interview.