ANITA BARETH Vs. RPSC & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of the parties, writ petition is heard finally. A challenge is made to the letter dated 17.4.2015, whereby, exclusion of the petitioner from the merit list for the post of School Lecturer (Urdu) has been justified. It is for the reason that petitioner has secured negative marks in the paper of General Knowledge.

(2.) It is a case where an advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the "RPSC") for the post of School Lecturer in different subjects. The petitioner applied for the post of School

(3.) Lecturer (Urdu) and, accordingly, appeared for selection. She secured in all 168.5 marks. In the "Urdu" paper, petitioner secured 177.93 marks, however, in General Knowledge, she had secured -9.42 marks i.e. in negative. In the advertisement, negative marking was permitted. The cut-off marks of SC (Female) is 73.36 marks, which is much below to the marks obtained by the petitioner. She has been held ineligible on the ground that marks in General Knowledge are in negative though neither the Rule nor the advertisement provide that one should have possessed minimum marks in each paper. The merit list was also prepared with cut-off marks by drawing aggregate marks of two papers. Learned counsel for RPSC has admitted that if the petitioner would have secured zero or one mark in General Knowledge then she would have been placed in the merit list. The exclusion is on account of negative marking in the paper of General Knowledge though petitioner applied for the post of School Lecturer in 'Urdu' where she has secured higher marks as compared to others. According to learned counsel for RPSC, poor General Knowledge of a candidate makes him unfit for the post hence, exclusion of the petitioner from merit list is justified. This court finds that if the petitioner would have secured 0 or 1 marks in General Knowledge then could have been placed in the merit but having secured negative marks, she has been excluded. The logic given by the learned counsel for the respondents is about poor knowledge of General Knowledge. It is, no doubt, true that negative marks exist in General Knowledge but overall marks of the petitioner are 168.5 and the Rule does not provide that one need to secure minimum or same marks in each paper. It does not provide even that candidate securing negative marks in any paper would be ineligible. In absence of any such Rule, what will prevail is the merit. The aggregate marks of two papers of the petitioner are quite high as compared to the cut-off marks.