Kalyan Prasad Sharma and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

M.N. Bhandari, J.—RPSC-respondent issued an advertisement for the post of Programmer apart from other posts. So far as present writ petitions are concerned, it relates to the post of Programmer. After holding selection test, respondents declared result wherein none of the petitioners could find place. A dispute regarding certain questions was raised and thereby RPSC constituted an expert committee to find out as to whether questions are having correct answers or not and further as to whether questions set out are proper or not. After scrutiny, the expert committee''s gave opinion that 20 questions either contain all wrong answers or were incorrect. A decision was taken to exclude 20 questions and award bonus marks as a consequence thereof. The respondents accordingly issued a fresh select list where again all the petitioners could secure minimum qualifying marks, thus declared successful. The respondents thereafter revised the marks arbitrarily and without notice to the petitioners, excluded petitioners from the list of successful candidates. The action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary in that regard. The petitioners are entitled to the bonus marks for wrong questions and thus revised list containing names of petitioners was rightly issued thus withdrawal of that and exclusion of petitioners'' names thereupon is illegal. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that after selection test, result was prepared however before its declaration, on a dispute, it was found that certain questions are having all incorrect answers or question itself is incorrect thus a decision was taken to delete 20 questions with award of bonus marks for each question so deleted. The result was thereafter declared wherein petitioners'' names could find place. After doing so, it was realized that as per Rule 24 of the Rules, 1992, one is required to possess minimum 40% marks in aggregate for written examination and for SC/ST, 36% marks. With grant of one bonus mark for each question so deleted, everybody could score 20 marks and thereby out of 80, they were required to secure only 20 marks, whereas one was required to possess minimum 40% marks to qualify the selection. A decision was thus taken to correct the mistake by enhancing the marks of each question left out i.e. 80 questions. The weightage of 20 marks so deleted was distributed on left out 80 questions making there value to be 1.11 marks each. It is to judge that out of 80 questions, who had correctly answered it, so as to secure minimum 40 marks therein. After undertaking aforesaid exercise, the petitioners could not find place in select list as most of the questions were incorrectly answered by them and thereby even after weightage of 1.11 marks for each left out question, they could not secure 40% marks. The action of the respondents thus is not only bonafide but to make it in consonance to Rule 24 and 25 of Rajasthan Computer State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 (in short "Rules, 1992"). The possession of minimum 40% marks in written examination does not otherwise declare a candidate as selected for appointment, rather it is subject to speed test and final list is prepared based on merit. The minimum qualifying marks are required to become eligible for type test. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents.

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submits that with declaration of first result, they were asked to seek NOC from previous employer and the candidates thereupon resigned from service. It is after delay of two months that revised result, prejudice to the petitioners was issued. The aforesaid aspect may also be taken note of.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

If facts of this case are taken into consideration then after written test, list of eligible candidates for type test, who secured minimum 40% marks for open category and 36% for SC/ST was prepared. It was realized that 20 questions are either incorrect or all the answers are incorrect thus decided to be deleted. At this stage, a decision was taken to allow bonus mark for each question so deleted. The outcome of the aforesaid was that every candidate could score 20% marks on that count irrespective of his performance in remaining 80 questions. The outcome of the first decision was nothing but availability of candidates without proper evaluation of their performance in the written test. It is because of grant of 20% marks not for performance but due to deletion of question leaving a candidate to obtain only 20% marks from 80 questions. It was taken to be against the object of Rule 24 of the Rules, 1992. The assessment of minimum 40%/36% qualifying marks should be from an amongst the correct answer given by the candidates. The respondents accordingly reviewed their decision to make it in consonance to Rule 24 of the Rules, 1992. For ready reference, Rule 24 is quoted hereunder:

Minimum qualifying maks.-Candidates who obtain a minimum of 40% marks in the aggregate for the written examination/speed test shall be considered to have obtained qualifying marks at the written examination/speed test, as the case may be, but the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination/speed test for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, shall be 36%. The Commission/Appointing Authority may in their/its discretion award grace marks upto one in each paper and upto three in the aggregate.

Perusal of provision aforesaid reveals that one should secure 40% marks in aggregate and for SC and ST candidates, 36% marks. If 40% marks are required to become eligible, it should be on the basis of the question attempted by candidate and not by a default, as exist herein. It is due to deletion of 20 questions.

In my opinion, RPSC took a wise decision to enhance weightage of left out 80 questions by making it 1.11 for each question so as to assess candidates for minimum 40% marks in aggregate. They accordingly revised the list wherein petitioners could not find place. It was due to poor performance of the petitioners in those questions which were made basis for assessment of their performance. They could not secure 40% marks in aggregate from 80 questions. In the background aforesaid, the grievance of the petitioners against revision of select list, is not tenable.

So far as fact regarding resignation from the previous employment is concerned, I do not find any document on record to substantiate the pleading so made in the writ petitions.

Learned counsel for petitioners was asked to show resignation letter which has been referred in the pleading. They are unable to show resignation letter or even the appointment order. Learned counsel for the petitioners is fair enough to state that letters were produced to show readiness to leave the previous employment. If that is so, then petitioners have not resigned from the previous employment but shown their readiness. In that eventuality, no prejudice has been caused to them by act or omission on the part of the respondents while issuing first select list.

In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents, rather their action is bonafide and to make it in consonance to the object of Rule 24 of the Rules, 1996 with true sanctity to the minimum marks required therein. The writ petitions are accordingly found to be devoid of merit hence dismissed.