D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1042 of 2014. Case: Sandeep Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1042 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Dinesh Yadav, Counsel and For Respondents: Nitesh Bagri, Counsel |
| Judges | Sunil Ambwani, Actg. C.J. and J.K. Ranka, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Citation | 2015 (2) CDR 710 (Raj) |
| Judgement Date | December 04, 2014 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
-
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioner-appellant appeared in the selections for the post of Artisan Grade-II Electrician A.C. for the vacant posts in his category, held under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965. He did not secure 30 marks in the Trade Test, which was the minimum passing marks in the selections, and thus, he was declared unsuccessful.
-
The writ petition giving rise to this Special Appeal was filed by the petitioner on the ground that he had secured 29.5 marks in the trade test, which should have been rounded off to 30, for consideration in the selections. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was declared unsuccessful, as he could not secure minimum of the prescribed 30 marks in the trade test. He observed that there is no provision of rounding off the marks obtained by the petitioner in the trade test.
-
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Another v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari & Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 10, in which it was held that where any application of prescribed percentage to reserved category is raised, it should be rounded off to full. The Supreme Court held that the rule of rounding off is based on logic and common sense and, if part is one-half or more, its value shall be increased to one and if part is less than half, then its value shall be ignored.
-
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari & Ors., (supra) had applied the principle of rounding off to the posts. The principle is not applicable to the minimum prescribed marks, as the acceptance of a fraction of the marks-less than the minimum would amount to lowering down the standards fixed for selections. He has relied upon Orissa Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr., (2011) 8 SCC 108, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"9. The appointment to the post of Civil Judge (JD) under the Orissa Judicial Services is guided by the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and Rule 24 thereof specifically deals with the criteria for determining of candidates for interview. Rule 24 reads thus:
24. Determination of number of candidates for interview.-The...
To continue reading
Request your trial