Kedar Nath Maheshwar vs State of Rajasthan

Veerendra Singh Siradhana, J.—The petitioners having unsuccessfully participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, in response to advertisement (Annexure-1), issued in the year 2004; have approached this Court praying for the following relief(s):-

(i) the respondents may kindly be directed to observe transparency and to demarket vacancies categorywise and the back log vacancies available to the scheduled caste may kindly be directed to be fulfilled on priority basis before fulfilling the current vacancies and no appointment orders be issued in pursuance of the merit list to any candidate unless the vacancies of back log belonging to the scheduled caste are fulfilled.

(ii) any other relief which this Hon''ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.

The skeletal facts, indispensable for appreciation of the controversy are: that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ''respondent-Commission''), invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher Grade-III, to fill up the backlog of reserved category (SC/ST). It is further pleaded that the reservation provided for Scheduled Tribe is 12% and for Scheduled Caste is 16%, but vacancies of Scheduled Caste have not been determined to the extent of the percentage of reservation. According to the self-assessment of the petitioners, they are confident of having secured higher merit than the successful candidates and therefore, their names ought to have been included in the list of successful candidates published by the respondent-Commission. The Scheduled Caste Unemployed Teachers Association also represented the matter to the then Hon''ble Education Minister. The representation evoked no response and therefore, instituted the instant writ proceedings, assailing the action of the respondent-Commission for non-inclusion of their names in the merit list; being violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the pleaded facts insistingly argued that the petitioners have been deprived of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Part-III of the Constitution. In spite of having higher marks than the last selected candidate, they have been deprived of their fundamental right of equality and equal opportunity in the matter of appointment to public service.

In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondents as well as respondent-Commission, have filed their counter-affidavits/replies, stating that recruitment process for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III in Primary and Upper Primary Schools, was carried out under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. The total 153417 application forms received in response to the advertisement, were scrutinized and a written test was conducted on 12th September, 2004, followed by declaration and publication of the priority/merit list of the successful candidates on 11th February, 2005, wherein the names of the petitioners did not find place owing to the fact that the petitioners secured less marks, than the last candidate selected in the SC (Male/WE) category. Marks secured by the petitioners at the examination have been detailed out in the counter-affidavit by the respondent-Commission, which reads thus:-

From the details of the marks secured by the petitioners, as detailed out herein above, it is reflected that only one petitioner i.e., Govind Atal, whose name appeared at serial number 22 herein above secured 120 marks, equal to the last candidate selected, whose date of birth was 2nd July, 1974. Thus, though the petitioner-Govind Atal, secured equal marks to the last candidate selected, but in such a case, the candidate who is elder/more in age, has to be accorded appointment, as per criterion adopted by the respondent-Commission.

The learned counsel for the respondent-Commission reiterating the pleaded facts and supporting the action of the respondents, has vehemently argued that there is no element of any illegality in the action of the respondents. Furthermore, the petitioners have not questioned the decision of the respondent-Commission taken in its meeting held on 19th January, 1998; wherein a criteria has been evolved, to give preference to higher marks obtained in the interview, and in case of aggregate marks and interview marks being same, the candidate with earlier date of birth will precede in the merit list. Moreover, this issue is no more res-integra in view of the opinion of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of a batch of writ applications, lead case being 2007 (3) ILR (Raj) 379 Therefore, the writ application merits rejection.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record.

In the case of Bharat Bhushan Basotia (supra), the Division Bench of this Court observed thus:-

The counsel for the RPSC submitted that the last selected woman category candidate and the appellant secured same marks in written examination as well as interview but in view of the decision taken by the Commission in its meeting held on 19th January, 1998 that in case of aggregate marks and interview marks being same, the candidate with earlier date of birth will precede in the merit list was adopted and the last selected candidate was given appointment as her date of birth was earlier to that of the appellant.

The extract of the proceedings of the Commission''s meeting held on 19th January, 1998 handed in by the counsel for the RPSC reads thus:

Extract of the proceedings of Commission''s meeting held on 19.1.1998 The matter was discussed and the commission decided to continue with the existing criteria of giving preference to higher marks obtained in the interview for adjudging general suitability in case aggregate marks of the candidates in written exam as well as interview are same. The Commission also concurred on the following criteria for the same purpose:-

(i) In case of aggregate marks and interview marks also being same, the candidate with earlier date of birth will precede in the merit list.

(ii) Aggregate marks, interview marks and age also being same, candidate with higher educational qualification will precede in the merit list.

(iii) Educational qualification also being same alongwith all total marks and age, candidate with higher marks attained in the educational qualification will precede in the merit list.

(iv) In case of all above conditions being same the candidate having attained educational qualification earlier will precede in the merit list.

The case of the appellant-Suman Rao is extremely hard as she secured the same marks in written examination as well as in interview as that of the last selected candidate but missed the bus because of the decision taken by the Commission on 19th January, 1998 that in case of aggregate marks and interview marks also being same, the candidate with earlier date of birth will precede in the merit list. There is no challenge to the legality and validity of the decision of the Commission taken in its meeting on 19th January, 1998 as noticed above. Thus nothing can be done in the appeal of Suman Rao. as well.

Upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that these special appeals have to be dismissed and are dismissed with no order as to costs.

In view of admitted position as detailed out by the respondent-Commission in their counter-affidavit, specifically pointing out the marks obtained by each of the petitioners, being less than that of the last candidate selected; there remains no element of any doubt that the petitioners failed to secure higher marks than those who have been selected. Only one candidate i.e., Govind Atal - petitioner, secured 120 marks being equal to the marks of the last candidate selected in the recruitment process, but his name was not included in the selection list for the reason that he is younger than the candidate who has been selected on the basis of criteria evolved by the respondent-Commission, in a situation where the aggregate marks of two candidates being equal, the candidate with earlier date of birth will precede in the merit list.

It is an admitted fact that the criteria, as evolved by the respondent-Commission, to resolve the situation where two or more candidates, who happen to secure equal marks in written as well as interview. The merit list is drawn by applying the criteria of earlier date of birth and in the event, if the date of birth happens to be the same, the candidate with higher educational qualification will precede in the merit list; and where the higher educational qualification also being equal, the candidate with higher marks in the educational qualification will precede in the merit list. If the candidates were equal on all parameters aforesaid, the candidate having obtained educational qualification earlier, will precede in the merit list.

For the reasons discussions herein above, I find that the writ application preferred on behalf of the petitioners, is absolutely misconceived and devoid of any substance and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

In view of the final adjudication on the writ application, the stay application stands closed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.