ASHISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Ashish Sharma challenging validity of Rule 11(1) and proviso (2) of Rule 20(1) of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999. It is prayed that the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to change his preference by opting Rajasthan Police Service as second choice may be declared arbitrary and illegal, and the respondents be directed to provide him chance to change his option and consider allotting him Rajasthan Police Service in the selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement dtd. 28/4/2016.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he possesses the Degree of Master of Technology in Mathematics and Computing under Integrated Master Degree Programme from Indian Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University in the year 2013. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, (for short, 'the respondent RPSC') issued an advertisement for appointment on 334 posts of the State Services and 369 posts of Subordinate Services under the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2016. The petitioner applied for appointment in response to the aforesaid advertisement by submitting online application form. He qualified the preliminary examination and thereafter the mains examination and was eventually called for interview. However, prior to interview, the respondent RPSC asked the petitioner to fill up the preference for the State Services and Subordinate Services. He submitted his preferences under the impression that he would be given one more opportunity to resubmit his preference after declaration of final result because as per Rule 17 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (for short, 'the Rules of 1999'), the respondent RPSC is required to prepare a list of candidates in order of aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidates. It is at that stage that the position would be more clear for him to choose his option for the preference for the services. Since the petitioner was unaware about his position in the merit list, he could not correctly submit his preference at the time of submitting his preference. The petitioner opted for Rajasthan Administrative Service as preference no.1, Rajasthan Police Service as preference no.16, Rajasthan Accounts Service as preference no.2 etc. The respondent RPSC prepared the select list on 17/10/2017 in order of merit and forwarded the same to the Government for appointment along-with their service preference. Therein, the petitioner secured 34th position. At this stage, the petitioner learnt that he had chances to get into the Rajasthan Police Services, which was better than his earlier choice. Since the petitioner did not fill it as his second preference, there is possibility that he may not be considered for the Rajasthan Police Services.

(3.) Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents in the advertisement dtd. 28/4/2016 notified to fill up the posts of different 30 services, out of which 17 posts were State services and 13 were subordinate services. The State Services included the posts of Rajasthan Administrative Services, Rajasthan Police Services, Rajasthan Accounts Services, Rajasthan Jail Services, Rajasthan Industries Services, Rajasthan Cooperative Services, Rajasthan Devsthan Services etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents were required to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to resubmit/change the preference for the post after declaration of the final result, so that the petitioner could exercise his discretion in the best possible manner. The petitioner was compelled to fill the preference prior to the interview. It was not made clear that this was the final opportunity to fill it. Since the petitioner was not apprised of the fact that this was the final opportunity prior to the interview, he could not fill the appropriate preference by exercising his discretion for proper preferences. The petitioner approached the office of the respondent RPSC to submit his fresh preference/option while preferring Rajasthan Police Services as the second preference. At this stage, the petitioner was informed that the option exercised by the petitioner prior to interview was final and that could not be altered. The petitioner submitted representation to the respondent RPSC requesting such permission, which however was rejected. The petitioner also approached the respondent State in this respect but that too of was no avail.