AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Writ petitions filed by a large number of persons have been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 22nd November, 2013.
The animal husbandry department of the Government of Rajasthan issued a notification inviting application to fill up 325 posts of Live Stock
Assistant. The number of the posts were later on increased to 521.
Eligibility prescribed was Senior Secondary with Physics, Chemistry, Biology or Agriculture and Animal Husbandary as the subjects and a
professional course of Training conducted by an institute approved by the State. Condition No.5 in the notification made it known to the candidates
that applications received will be scrutinized on basis of merit in the qualifying examination i.e. Senior Secondary and professional course.
The respondents proceeded to prepare a select list only with reference to marks obtained in the qualifying examination and the professional course
examination.
Case of the appellants, who were the writ petitioners, was that Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Services Rules, 1977 only
permitted scrutiny of the application but merit had to be on the basis of interview and a test.
The Rule in question reads as under:-
“19. Scrutiny of Application.- The Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall scrutinise the applications received by them
and require as many candidates, qualified for appointment under these Rules, as seem to them desirable to appear before them for interview and for
test in such manner as the Commissioner or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, may deem fit:
Provided that the decision of the Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, regarding the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate shall
be final.â€
Dismissing the writ petition filed, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that Rule 19 provides for scrutiny of application at initial stage for
short listing number of candidates to be called by Commission or the Appointing Authority. Since the advertisement did not specifically provide for
written test and interview and because merit was drawn on the marks obtained in the professional course examination and Senior Secondary, no
wrong was committed by the respondents. The learned Single Judge has noted that the 521 candidates who were offered appointments were not
made parties. The learned Single Judge also noted that no person lower in merit has been appointed.
Learned counsel for the appellants states that short listing is a concept different than drawing the merit list. Counsel states that Rule 19 has two
limbs. The first limb permits short listing on scrutiny of application but the second limb mandates merit to drawn on the basis of interview and the test.
Pertaining to the interview and the test contemplated by the Rules we note the phrase in the Rule is; “as seem to them desirable to appear
before them for interview and for testâ€. The language of the phrase gives latitude to the department, if thought desirable, to call the candidate to
interview and for a test. It does not mandate that select panel has to be on the basis of interview and test.
Under the circumstances the view taken by the learned Single Judge that as long as there was fairness and transparency in the selection process,
based on marks obtained as Senior Secondary and professional course examination, the appointments cannot be said to be tainted is a justifiable view.
We dismiss the appeal for the additional reason that the selected candidates were not impleaded as respondents.
The appeals are dismissed.