JAY PRAKASH Vs. RPSC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated November 18, 1996 in Civil Appeal Nos. 15068 -15071 15068 -15071 of 1996 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19541 -44 of 1996, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Shri Vikram Singh and 19 Ors. and the judgment dated September 24, 1996 as passed in Civil Appeal No. 13118 of 1996 arising out of SLP (C) No. 18487 of 1996, Chattar Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. the judgment and order dated September 12, 1996 in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2215 of 1996, stand set aside.

(2.) IN the judgment dated November 18, 1996 in Civil Appeal No. 15068 -15071 15068 -15071 of 1996, it was made clear in so far as the judgment dated September 12, 1996 of the Division Bench is concerned, that the controversy raised in the matter is already covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chattar Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in JT 1996 SC (9) 466. The only question that arose for further decision was whether the High Court would be justified in giving direction to declare the result of those candidates who secured higher marks than fixed as cut -off marks ? The Supreme Court made it clear that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court that under Rule 13, candidates numbering 15 times the vacancies notified should be called for the final examination. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission should follow the said rule but since the results have already been declared in respect of some candidates, the same may not be disturbed for this examination alone. In all other respect the judgment passed in Chattar Singh's case on September 24, 1996 in Civil Appeal No. 13118 of 1996, should be followed. We do not find any anomaly in interpreting the Supreme Court judgment wherein it has been clearly said that OBCs are not entitled to 5% cut -off marks in the preliminary examination as provided under proviso to Rule 13. As regards the preparation of separate lists of General, OBC, SC, ST and Physically Handicapped persons, in view of the fact that the latest amendment has made explicit what was implicit in Rule 13, the Supreme Court expressed the view that separate lists are required to be published by the Public Service Commission in respect of the candidates in the respective categories so as to make up the number of candidates 15 times the notified or anticipated posts/vacancies so as to enable them to appear in the main examination. Even though the amendment was prospective in operation, the Supreme Court clearly observed that it does not detract from the efficiency of Rule 13 and Public Service Commission has been directed to call all those candidates that constitute 15 times the posts/vacancies notified or anticipated in terms of the declaration of the law so as to enable them to appear in the main examination.

(3.) AS regards the application filed by some of the applicants for extension of the date of holding the examination in view of the fact that notice for the purpose of the examination reached them rather late to be precise in the month of November 1996, we think that there is already sufficient time left for the holding of the examination. We do not think that we would be mandating the Public Service Commission for postponement of the date of examination, more so keeping in view the fact that the examinations are of the year 1994. The application stands rejected.