BALVINDER KAUR D/O SHRI SWARNJEET SINGH Vs. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the action of the respondent-Department of Personnel in ignoring her name in the list of candidates invited for appearing in the Medical Examination pursuant to the recommendations made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for selection in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Joint Competitive Examination, 2012. In the final merit list declared by the R.P.S.C., the petitioners' roll number finds place in the category of SC Women. The petitioner has set up a case that her name was recommended to the respondent-Department of Personnel but while issuing the list of probables on 20.08.2015, the respondents have ignored the candidature of the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she ranks at Serial No. 22 in the merit list of SC Women category. One Richa Garg ranks at Serial No. 23. She has got less marks than the petitioner but has been invited for the medical examination, whereas, the petitioner has been ignored.

(2.) An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. As per the said additional affidavit, the petitioner had filled only 03 preferences. She was at Serial No. 1904 in the general merit and therefore, was not found eligible in the 03 preferences given by her. Hence, she was not called for the medical examination. Richa Garg, on the other side, who was at Serial No. 1951 in the merit list, gave preferences for 08 State Services and 07 Subordinate Services i.e. total 15 preferences. She was found eligible in accordance with her preference. Accordingly, she was called for the medical examination.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that preferences given by the candidates have only to be considered towards a privilege granted while considering the service in which the candidate is to be absorbed. As per him, such candidates covered in merit whose names are recommended by the Commission to the State have to be offered appointment on a suitable post as per his/her merit. The petitioner cannot be denied appointment just because she gave only 03 preferences. While filling the merit, the candidate is only indicating his preferential post and no concrete conclusion can be drawn from the preferences because the select list is to be governed by the merit position of the candidate. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.