D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18639 of 2013. Case: Sanjay Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18639 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.P. Singh, Sr. Adv. and Shashi Kant Saini, Advs. and For Respondents: S.K. Gupta, Add. Adv. General, Gaurav Tanwar, S.N. Kumawat, A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. and V.K. Sharma, Advs. |
| Judges | Amitava Roy, C.J. and Veerendra Singh Siradhana, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21, 233, 234, 309 |
| Citation | 2014 LabIC 2153 |
| Judgement Date | April 11, 2014 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Amitava Roy, C.J., (Jaipur Bench)
-
The present indictment is of the second proviso to Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules') inserted vide notification No. F. 1 DOP(3)/A-II/2010, G.S.R. No. 35 dated 10.6.2011, amending the same. The gauntlet has been taken by up some of the candidates who, though had participated in the process for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate (for short, hereafter referred to as 'Civil Judge') initiated by the advertisement dated 22.7.2011, had been eventually proclaimed to be unsuccessful therefore. We have heard Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shashi Kant Saini for the petitioners, Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, Rajasthan assisted by Mr. Gaurav Tanwar, for the State-respondent, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Commission/respondent-Commission') & Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V.K. Sharma, for the respondent-High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (for short, hereafter referred to 'High Court' as well).
-
The vires of the above provision of the Rules under impeachment though, skeletal facts, borne out by the pleadings, are indispensable. To reiterate, the respondent-Commission had issued an advertisement dated 22.7.2011 for direct recruitment to 101 posts of Civil Judge, in terms of the Rules. The advertisement disclosed, amongst others, the conditions of eligibility and the extent of reservation in appointment, as per the break-up of posts, referred to therein. The petitioners, claiming themselves to be eligible, did respond to the advertisement. The exercise, designed in compliance of the Rules, comprised of a Preliminary Examination (objective type) and the Main Written Examination, followed by Interview of all the candidates successful in the said examination. The main examination consisted of Law Paper-I & Law Paper-II of 100 marks each and Language Paper-I in Hindi Essay & Paper-II in English Essay of 50 marks each. For the interview, 35 marks were earmarked. In terms of the scheme of examination, the Recruiting Authority was to call for the interview, such candidates who had obtained a minimum of 35% marks in each of the law papers and 40% marks in the aggregate. For Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes category candidates, the minimum percentages, on these counts, were fixed at 30% and 35% respectively. Incidentally, by the amendment, adverted to hereinabove, vide second proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules, it was prescribed that no candidate, who would fail to obtain minimum 25% marks in the interview, would be recommended. The number of candidates, to be called for the interview in accordance with their order of merit in the written test, was predicated to be approximately three times the vacancies reserved for each category.
-
According to the petitioners, they appeared in the preliminary examination, and having passed the same, did take the main written examination as well. Further, on the basis of their performance, they were also called for the interview, and that, they partook in the same. In the results declared on 16.8.2013 and the mark-sheets uploaded on the internet, it transpired that the petitioners had not been recommended for appointment, as they had failed to secure the minimum 25% marks in the interview though, in aggregate, all of them had scored in excess of the cut-off marks in the respective category. Tracing their exclusions from the list of recommended candidates, to the mandate of the second proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules, they have assailed the validity thereof on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India as well as Justice Shetty Commission Recommendations (hereafter referred to as 'the Recommendations'), since approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in All India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., ((2002) 4 SCC 247: AIR 2002 SC 1752).
-
The respondent-State, in its reply, while emphatically endorsing the constitutional validity of the proviso involved, has, with reference to Schedule IV of the Rules, highlighted the indispensable essentiality and pre-eminence of interview to ensure a complete and wholesome evaluation of a candidate, irrespective of his/her performance in the written examination for induction to the post involved, in judicial service. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court inter alia in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., ((1981) 4 SCC 159: AIR 1981 SC 1777) underscoring the indispensable needfulness to evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, adaptability, ability to make decision etc., in judging the candidature of a person and his/her suitability in judicial service, the respondent has asserted that the statutory rules, having approved a minimum percentage of marks therefore, the same is per se valid, and thus, the exercise undertaken, in conformity therewith, is unassailable.
-
The respondent-Commission, in its reply, has asserted that on receipt of the necessary requisition from the State Government, it had issued the advertisement, as above, and the petitioners, without any demur, having participated in the process that ensued, they are estopped from turning a volte-face and questioning the validity thereof or any provision of the Rules, governing the same. It admitted that the petitioners, having been declared eligible on the basis of their performance in the main written examination, were called for the interview, in terms of the Rules, whereafter eventually, the merit list was prepared, strictly as per Rule 24 of the Rules. According to the respondent-Commission, had the petitioners any reservation, as now expressed, they ought to have challenged the process before partaking in the same. Their instant endeavor has been dismissed by the respondent-Commission to be a patent afterthought. According to it, the Rules have been framed in conformity with the constitutional mandate, to which it had accorded its concurrence, and thus, it is irrefutably valid. Pleading that judicial service is exclusive by nature and its inherent attributes, for which a minimum level of performance in the interview is an indispensable imperative to secure the quality of inductions thereto, the respondent-Commission has asserted that the impugned provision of the Rules has been uniformly applied to all the candidates, and thus, the challenge thereto, on the measure of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, is wholly misconceived. According to it, failure of the petitioners to obtain the minimum percentage of marks in the interview, is an unmistakable index of want of required merit in them, imperative for appointment in judicial service.
-
Mr. Singh, with profuse reference to Chapters - 8 & 10 of the Recommendations, has argued that as predicated thereby, there cannot be any cut-off marks in the viva-voce test. According to the learned senior counsel, these Recommendations, having been...
To continue reading
Request your trial