AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Instant bunch of appeals since involves common question, hence heard together & being decided by the present order. Instant intra-court appeals have been filed against order of learned Single Judge dismissing writ petitions of the applicants who had participated in the process of selection initiated for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, which is included in the schedule appended to Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 ("Rules, 1962"), pursuant to advertisement dt. 20.09.2011. It will be relevant to notice that for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF) the selection process is based on written examination followed with personality & viva-voce examination in terms of R. 24 of the Rules, 1962 where the applicant/candidate has to secure minimum 35% marks in each of the compulsory subject and a minimum of 40 marks in the aggregate to qualify the written test. However, the Commission still holds discretion to award grace marks upto 1 in each of the compulsory papers and upto 3 in aggregate and those who qualify in the written test with fulfillment of the requirement postulated under the scheme of Rules, 1962 are being called upon for viva-voce examination and those who are finally selected their candidatures are being recommended by the Commission as contemplated u/R 25 of the Rules, 1962. Indisputably either of the appellant petitioner had not obtained minimum 35% marks in each of the compulsory subjects and at this stage when they were not permitted to appear & participate in the Viva-voce examination, approached to this Court by filing their respective writ petitions.
The learned Single Judge taking note of R. 24 of Rules, 1962 and observed that each of the applicant/candidate has to secure 35% marks in each of the compulsory subjects and a minimum of 40% marks in the aggregate and the corrigendum which was issued by the Commission on 30.08.2013 after the written examination was held in no manner changes the conditions of eligibility and it is an intimation to the applicant/candidate that such of the applicants alone could be permitted to appear in Viva-voce examination those who fulfilled the mandate of R. 24 of the Rules, 1962 and upheld decision of the Commission in not permitting such ineligible candidates to participate in Viva-voce examination.
Counsel for appellants at the stage when one of the appeal came up for admission pointed out that in one of the similar matter, a Single Bench of this Court granted ad-interim protection to the writ petitioner and permitted him to participate in Viva-voce examination and keeping reliance thereof the Division Bench of this Court also granted ad-interim protection to one of the appellant as well, as such out of 4 one of the appellant has appeared in Viva-voce examination under the ad-interim order of this Court on provisional basis.
The main thrust of submission of counsel for appellants is that after issuance of advertisement which was notified on 20.09.2011 and the written examination held on 26-30.06.2012, issuance of corrigendum at later stage on 30.08.2013 is noting but to make them ineligible and the rule of examination could not be changed at a later stage after it has once commenced.
Counsel for appellants jointly further submits that the Commission has not followed the mandate of R. 25 of the Rules, 1962 where each of the candidate has to obtain 33% marks in the personality & viva-voce examination and a minimum of 50 marks in the aggregate. Their contention is that the Commission has recommended names of such of the candidates as well who have not been able to obtain 50 marks in the aggregate and such relaxation is not permitted under the scheme of Rules, 1962 and the recommendation made by the Commission in respect of such of the candidates u/R 25 of the Rules, 1962 is bad in law and taking assistance thereof, submits that the appellants are also entitled to seek such relaxations as has been granted by the Commission.
Either of the submission is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that R. 24 of the Rules, 1962 which we have noticed, casts an obligation on the candidate to obtain a minimum of 35% in each of the compulsory subjects and a minimum of 40% in the aggregate and both the conditions are dependent upon each other and if the candidate fails to obtain minimum of 35% marks in each of the compulsory subjects he is not eligible to participate in viva-voce examination which is the second stage of the process of selection and the corrigendum which was issued by the Commission after issuance of the advertisement on 30.08.2013 and holding written examination, it has not changed conditions of eligibility of an applicant/candidate who had participated in the selection process pursuant to advertisement dt. 20.09.2011 but is an intimation to the candidates about the mandate of R. 24 of the Rules, 1962 which one has to fulfill to become eligible to participate in the second stage of viva-voce examination to be conducted by the Commission and it doesn''t change the conditions of eligibility of the candidate who had initially participated pursuant to advertisement dt. 20.09.2011.
As regards the submission made in respect of candidates who have been ultimately recommended by the Commission in contravention of R. 25 of the Rules, 1962, suffice it to say that it was neither the question before the learned Single Judge nor any material to support and even such of the applicants who as held by us are not eligible to participate in the second stage of viva-voce examination at least have no right to question the recommendations made by the Commission u/R 25 of the Rules, 1962 and we do not find any error in the order of learned Single Judge which may require interference. Consequently, the appeals are wholly bereft of merit & accordingly dismissed.