SATYAPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question involved in the present case is, "whether, for the post of Warder mentioned at Sr. No. 12 in Category II of Schedule-I appended with the Rajasthan Jail Subordinate Service Rules, 1998, a written examination is necessary or not and whether the Rule 27 of Rules of 1998 is applicable for the said post or not."

(2.) In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Advertisement dated 21st December, 1998 (Annexure-1) issued by the respondent Director General of Prisons, Rajasthan, Jaipur advertising the 244 posts of 'Warder' being contrary to Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Jails Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 (here-in-after referred to "Rules of 1998"). The process of selection mentioned in the advertisement is that physical efficiency test will be conducted by physical Screening Committee, the persons securing more than 50 marks in the physical efficiency test will be called for interview.

(3.) The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that as per Rule 26, the competitive examination for direct recruitment to a post in category I of Schedule-I shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the scheme of examination laid down in Schedule-II and as per Rule 27, the candidates, who obtained 36% marks in each paper and 40% marks in aggregate in the competitive examination shall be considered to have obtained qualifying marks at the examination. Their contention is that Rule 27 is independent and the obtaining of 36% marks in each paper and 40% marks in the aggregate is necessary for all the posts of Category I and Category II of Schedule-I, whereas the respondents are not conducting any written examination for the post of Warder, therefore, their action is contrary to Rule 27 of the Rules of 1998, hence, the entire process of selection, as mentioned in the Advertisement, be declared as illegal and contrary to Rule 27, and be quashed.