Rajesh Kumar Peeploda And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Both these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment as the issues raised in both the writ petitions are identical and the prayer made

is also almost similar.

In first writ petition, bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.8329/2020 (Rajesh Kumar Peeploda & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & anr.), the petitioners have

prayed to revise the result dated 09/07/2020 of the main examination of RAS and Allied Services Competitive Examination 2018 and to include

candidates by increasing the cut-off marks which may bring the competition at least 2.5 times for non-TSP and TSP areas candidates.

In the second writ petition, bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.8330/2020 (Kavita Godara & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & anr.), the petitioners challenge

the decision of the RPSC while challenging the result dated 09/07/2020 confining the zone of consideration to 1.92 times the number of candidates of

RAS and RTS (Mains) Examination 2018 and further pray to prescribe the minimum cut- off marks in respective categories for the purpose of

qualifying the candidates in interview which brings the zone of consideration more than two times the number of vacancies and to treat the petitioners

eligible for interview if they find place in the final merit list.

Reply was filed in both the writ petitions and thereafter an additional affidavit was filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) giving

additional factual report to which a counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in the case of Kavita Godara & Ors. (supra).

Arguments were heard at length.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for RPSC handed over a confidential document giving out details of the candidates called for

interview on the basis of the result dated 09/07/2020.

Written submissions have been filed by learned counsels in both the writ petitions as well as by the learned counsels for the State and RPSC and

additional submissions have also been filed by the State Government.

For the purpose of deciding the controversy, the pleadings in the case of Kavita Godara (supra) are being taken into consideration as counter

affidavit and additional affidavit have been filed in that case and the arguments were advanced on all the aspects.

The facts briefly stated are that as per the The Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive

Examinations) Rules, 1999 framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the RPSC issued a detailed advertisement on 02/04/2018

inviting on-line applications for participation in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2018 (herein after

referred to as 'RAS & RTS Examination, 2018') The aforesaid advertisement mentions the number of posts which are available in different State

Services as well as Subordinate Services and a candidate is required to apply by a single application for all the posts.

Initially, 405 posts were advertised for State Services and 575 posts for Subordinate Services making total 980 posts available for the candidates,

however, vide corrigendum dated 01/07/2020, the number of posts were increased and as per the revised bifurcation, 421 posts for State Services and

593 posts for Subordinate Services, were advertised making the total of 1014 vacant posts in State and Subordinate Services available in Non- TSP

area. Additionally, 39 posts for TSP Area were also advertised. Thus, the total number of posts advertised in all are 1051.

Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999, as it stood when the advertisement was issued, reads as under:-

Scheme of Examination, personality and Viva-voce Test. - The Competitive Examination shall be conducted by the Commission in two stages i.e.

preliminary Examination and Main Examination as per the scheme specified in Schedule III. The marks obtained in the preliminary Examination by the

candidates, are declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination will not be counted for determining their final order of merit. The number of

candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination will be 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies (category wise) to be filled in the year

in the various services and posts; provided they are other eligible, but in the said range all those candidates who secure the same percentage of marks

as may be fixed by the Commission for any lowest range will be admitted to the Main Examination:

Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion shall be

summoned by them for an interview. The Commission shall award marks to each candidate interviewed by them, having regard to their character,

personality, address, physique and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. However for selection the Rajasthan Police Service Candidates having ""C

certificate of N.C.C. will be given preference. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the Main Examination by each such

candidate:

Provided that the commission, on intimation being received from the Government before declaration of the result of the Preliminary Examination, may

increase or decrease the number of vacancies advertised.

Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 was substituted vide notification dated 09/06/2020 which reads as under:-

Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined

Competitive Examination) (IIIrd Amendment) Rules, 2020.

(2) They shall come into force with immediate effect except second proviso to sub-rule (2) of the rule 15 and second proviso to clause (a) of sub-head

(ii) Main Examination of head (1) Scheme of examination of Schedule-III substituted by these rules, which shall be deemed to have come into force

with effect from 17- 06-2013.

Substitution of rule 15.- The existing rule 15 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive

Examination) Rules 1999, hereinafter referred to as the said rules, shall be substituted by the following, namely:-

Scheme of Examination, Personality and Viva-Voce Test.- (1) The Competitive Examination shall be conducted by the Commission in two stages

i.e. Preliminary Examination and Main Examination as per the scheme specified in Schedule- III. The marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination

by the candidates declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination, will not be counted for determining their final order of merit. (2) The

number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination will be fifteen times the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in the year

through the examination but in the said range all those candidates who secure the same marks as may be fixed by the Commission for any lower

range will be admitted to the Main Examination:

Provided that, if the Commission is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates belonging to reserved category are not available on the basis of

general standard for appearing in the Main Examination, relaxed standard may be applied by the Commission for admitting candidates belonging to

such reserved category so that sufficient number of candidates in that category are available to appear in the Main Examination. For this purpose, the

zone of consideration of 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies shall stand relaxed. However, candidates so additionally qualified for the

main examination will be eligible for selection to the posts reserved for respective categories only.

Provided further that in case of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination 2013, 2016 and 2018, process for which

has already been completed or commenced, candidates belonging to reserved category called by the Commission in excess of 15 times the posts

reserved for respective reserved category for appearing in the main examination, as candidates of respective reserved categories, because of having

secured equal or more marks than the cut-off marks for general category in preliminary examination for that year, shall be considered qualified for

appearing in the main examination for that year.

Note: For the purpose of this rule ""reserved category"" means any such category for which reservation, either horizontal or vertical is applicable.

(3) Candidates who obtained such minimum qualifying marks in the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion shall be

summoned by them for an interview.

(4) The candidates appearing in the main examination shall be required to obtain minimum 10% marks in each paper and 15% marks in aggregate out

of the total marks of all papers in the main examination to qualify for appearing in personality and viva voce examination:

Provided that relaxation of 5% in such minimum marks shall be given to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Schedules Tribes categories.

(5) The Commission shall award marks to each candidate interviewed by them, having regard to their character, personality, articulation, physique and

knowledge of culture of Rajasthan. However, for selection to the Rajasthan Police Service candidates having 'C' Certificate of N.C.C. will be given

preference. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the Main Examination by each such candidate:

Provided that the Commission, on intimation being received from the Government before declaration of the result of Preliminary Examination, may

increase or decrease the number of vacancies advertised.

Amendment of Schedule-III.- In Schedule-III appended to the said rules,- (i) in head (1) Scheme of Examination, under sub-head (ii) Main

Examination, the existing clause (a) shall be substituted by the following new clauses (a) and (aa), namely :- ""(a) The number of candidates to be

admitted to the Main Examination will be fifteen times the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in the year through the examination but in

the said range all those candidates who secure the same marks as may be fixed by the Commission for any lower range will be admitted to the Main

Examination :

Provided that, if the Commission is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates belonging to reserved category are not available on the basis of

general standard for appering in the Main Examination, relaxed standard may be applied by the Commission for admitting candidates belonging to such

reserved category so that sufficient number of candidates in that category are available to appear in the Main Examination. For this purpose, the zone

of consideration of 15 times the total approximated number of vacancies shall stand relaxed. However, candidates so additionally qualified for the main

examination will be eligible for selection to the posts reserved for respective categories only.

Provided further that in case of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination 2013, 2016 and 2018, process for which

has already been completed or commenced, candidates belonging to reserved category called by the Commission in excess of 15 times the posts

reserved for respective reserved category for appearing in the main examination, as candidates of respective reserved categories, because of having

secured equal or more marks than the cut-off marks for general category in Preliminary Examination for that year, shall be considered qualified for

appearing in the main examination for that year.

Note : For the purpose of this clause ""reserved category"" means any such category for which reservation, either horizontal or vertical is applicable.

(aa) The candidates appearing in the main examination shall be required to obtain minimum 10% marks in each paper and 15% marks in aggregate out

of the total marks of all papers in the main examination to qualify for appearing in personality and viva voce examination:

Provided that relaxation of 5% in such minimum marks shall be given to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes categories"";

and

(ii) the existing clause (i) under head (2) Personality and viva-voce Examination (See rule 15) shall be substituted by the following, namely-

(i) Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the written test of the Main Examination, as may be fixed by the Commission in their

discretion subject to clause (aa) under sub-head (ii) Main Examination of head (1) Scheme of Examination, shall be summoned by them for personality

and viva voce examination which carries 100 marks.

As per Rule 15 (amended), the preliminary examination was conducted and the result of the preliminary examination was declared on 23/10/2018.

The cut-off for OBC category was higher than the cut-off of general category. The result was to be declared 15 times category-wise.

The said result was challenged in various writ petitions alongwith SB Civil Writ Petition No.24725/2018 titled as Surghan Singh & Ors. Vs. State

of Raj. & Anr. wherein this Court passed an interim order dated 01/12/2018 by which directions were issued as under:-

(i) All reserved category candidates who without taking benefit of any concession, except on payment of fees, are more meritorious than the last of

the open category candidates in the RAS Preliminary Examination 2018 to participate in the main examination be conditionally allowed to participate in

the said Main Examination subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. No equity would operate for the petitioners and other like them who write the

main examination on the foundation of this interim direction.

(ii) Result of Main Examination, 2018 for RAS and allied services, to be held on 23.12.2018 onwards, not be declared till further directions/permissions

of this Court.

Thereafter, in pursuance of the order order dated 01/12/2018 as above, the extended result dated 13/12/2018 was issued and additional number of

candidates were allowed to appear in the mains examination.

Thereafter, the writ petition of Surghan Singh (supra) came to be decided on 30/06/2020 by passing following order:-

This Court finds that the grievance raised by the petitioners is to treat them as General Category, as they have claimed that they have secured more

marks than the candidates of General Category in the Examination of 2018.

This Court on perusal of the notification of the State Government dated 09.06.2020 finds that the State Government has decided to amend the Rules

and to include the reserved category candidates as General Category Candidates and the same has also been made applicable for Previous

Examinations conducted in the year 2013, 2016 and 2018. This Court further finds that the main dispute is of Competitive Examination of 2018 and in

view of the notification issued by the State Government, no adjudication is required by this Court.

This Court accordingly disposes of the present writ petitions while observing that the State Government will act according to the notification issued on

09.06.2020. This Court also makes it clear that the interim directions given by this court on 01.12.2018 of not declaring the result of Main RAS

Examination 2018 will not come in way of the RPSC and result would be declared now as per scheme of examination of notification dated 09.06.2020.

Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand disposed of.

The petitioners in both the present writ petitions were called for mains examination and result has now been declared on 09/07/2020.

As per the petitioners, for non-TSP area, total 1953 candidates have been declared as qualified for interview which is about 1.92 times of the

number of vacancies advertised and that is less than two candidates per post. It is also noticed that candidates have been called category-wise 1.5 to

1.92 times and different cut-offs for different categories horizontal as well as vertical have been laid down by the RPSC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the scheme, the examination is based on three stages i.e. preliminary examination for the

purpose of shortlisting having no weightage in the final merit list, mains examination of 800 marks having weightage in the final merit list and interview.

The marks awarded in the interview would be added to the marks obtained in the mains examination for preparing overall merit. Thus, the interview

has an important role to play in the examination.

It is submitted that the mains examination (written) as well as interview are combined part to reach to a common merit. Learned counsel stressed on

Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 which provides that candidates who obtained such minimum qualifying marks in the mains examination as may be fixed

by the Commission in their discretion shall be summoned for an interview. Thus, it is argued that the minimum qualifying marks were required to be

laid down for appearing for interview.

Mr. RN Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shovit Jhajharia submitted that Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 does not permit to prepare

category-wise merit list at the stage of main examination for the purpose of calling candidates in interview. A plain reading of Rule is that the

Commission should fix minimum qualifying marks for candidates to be called for interview. At the stage of declaring result of the mains examination,

all candidates who have been called from all categories and all categories of candidates who have been called for preliminary examination, form a

single class. It is submitted that at this stage, the action of the Commission in preparing category-wise list of candidates who have qualified the mains

examination for interview, is contrary to the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 and that it is only after the interview when the final merit is

prepared that the candidates should be adjusted to their respective category on the basis of their overall merit secured. It is at that stage that cut-off

for various categories was required to be laid down and therefore, submitted that the result declared of the mains examination is contrary to Rule 15 of

the Rules of 1999.

He has relied on judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Sanyam Lodha: 2011(13) SCC 262 to submit that the discretion mentioned in

Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 for calling candidates for interview is with respect to laying down minimum qualified marks. Such a discretion has to be

exercised fairly, rationally and reasonably by calling adequate number of candidates to ensure competition amongst the candidates at the stage of

interview.

He also relies on judgment of the Apex Court in Mangalam Organics Limited Vs. Union of India: 2017(7) SCC 22 1to submit that the discretion

exercised must be consistent with the object sought to be achieved. Learned counsel also relied on judgment of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar

Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.: 1985(4) SCC 417 to submit that the candidates to the extent of at least two to three times the number of

posts should be called.

Mr. Vigyan Shah, who appears in writ petition of Kavita Godara & Ors., in his written submissions has stated that the selection process was

initiated on 02/04/2018. It is stated that the RPSC has failed to take notice of the words; 'candidates who obtained such minimum qualifying marks in

the mains examination' as the criteria for calling persons for interview. It is submitted that second para of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 does not

mention the word 'category-wise'. Learned counsel pointed out that word 'category-wise' is only with respect to calling candidates 15 times the

number of vacancies category-wise for the purpose of admitting in mains examination. The action of the RPSC in introducing the word 'category-

wise' at the stage of laying down minimum qualifying marks for candidates for calling them for interview has vitiated the result. He also pointed out

that the notification dated 09/06/2020, which substituted the earlier Rule 15, was brought into force with immediate effect and was not applicable on

the present selection process except proviso to sub- rule 2 of Rule 15 and second proviso to clause (a), sub-head II Mains Examination of sub-head (ii)

Main Examination of head once scheme of examination of Schedule-III which was made retrospective on the examination of 2018. It is, thus,

submitted that the amended substituted Rule 15 issued vide notification dated 09/06/2020 so far as result of mains examination is concerned was not

applicable. It is stated that the action of RPSC in applying new rule to the examination of 2018 was illegal and unjustified.

It is further stated that the action of the respondents in applying new Rule as amended on 09/06/2020 to the impugned result dated 09/07/2020 could

not have been applied. Further, it is submitted that the amended provisions of Rule 15(3) & 15(5) require for prescribing of minimum qualifying marks

which has also not been done by the RPSC.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission during the course of arguments was, therefore, asked to put up their stand whether the new Rule

has been applied or whether the old Rule, as existed prior to notification dated 09/06/2020, has been made applicable ?

The respondent-Commission has thereafter submitted written submissions and stated as under:-

That the RPSC submitted detailed reply with the contention that RPSC conducted the RAS (main) examination 2018 25/26.6.2019 and the result of

the examination was declared on 09.07.2020 in pursuance of Rule 15 of Rules, 1999. That the relevant part of rule 15 of Rules, 1999 is reproduced as

under :-

(3) Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion shall be

summoned by them for an interview.

(4) The candidates appearing in the main examination shall be required to obtain minimum 10% marks in each paper and 15% marks in aggregate out

of the total marks of all papers in the main examination to qualify for appearing in personality and viva voce examination:

Provided that relaxation of 5% in such minimum marks shall be given to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes categories.

That in pursuance of rules 15 RPSC has taken a full commission decision dated 6.7.2020 to call the candidates for interview as per the discretion

provided by the rules. That in the full commission decision dated 6.7.2020 decision has been taken to call the 1:1.5 times of the general male and

female candidates and if, on the said cutoff if, reserved category candidate are not available upto the ratio of 1:1.5 they may be picked up from the

bottom and the said process may be adopted for all horizontal category and the candidates may be picked up from the bottom, if they are not available

in the range of 1:1.5 the same process may also be adopted for widow and women candidates.

That as per full commission decision dated 6.7.2020 cutoff of the general male and general female was fixed as 344.00 and according to that cutoff

for the remaining categories SC-Gen., SC, WE, SC-WD, ST-GE, ST-WE, ST-WD, OBC-Gen., OBC-WE, OBC-WD, MBC- Gen., MBC-WE, MBC-

WD etc. upto the extent 1:1.5 times candidates were considered and in case, candidates of the said categories were not available in the ratio of 1:1.5

the they were pickup from the bottom. That similarly category belongs to BL/LV/HI, LD, CP ex-servicemen, sportsman, and DC category of

candidates, Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services, Rajasthan Commercial Tax Subordinate Services, Rajasthan Food and Civil Logistic Subordinate

Services, Rajasthan Cooperative Subordinate Services, Rajasthan Labour Welfare Subordinate Services, were called in the ratio of 1:1.5 on fixing the

cutoff. Therefore, against 1014 posts of Non-TSP overall 1953 candidates were declared provisionally qualified for the interview. That in the said

process overall in the ratio of 1:1.92 candidates were called for the interview against the overall advertised posts.

That against the 1051 TSP and Non-TSP advertised posts overall 2010 candidates has been called for the interview in the overall ratio i.e. 1:1.92.

That if, RPSC declared two times candidates successful for the interview the additional 700 candidates would be interviewed and it will cross the

range of 2.5 against the advertised posts.

That if, in the main result dated 9.7.2020, minimum qualifying marks fixed only, 344.00 which is the minimum qualifying marks for general, in that

eventuality candidates of SC-Gen., SC, WE, SC-WD, ST-GE, ST-WE, ST-WD, OBC-Gen., OBC-WE, OBC-WD, MBC-Gen., MBC-WE, MBC-WD

etc. will not be available in the ratio of 1:1.5 and they would be ousted from the selection process and posts marked from them in the interview would

not be available in adequate number against the advertised posts.

The decision was taken by the RPSC is as per his discretion, as the ample number of candidates are available to the RPSC for the interview.

Learned counsel for the RPSC has relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court inA shok Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana: 1985

(4) SCC 417 wherein it has been held as under:-

It is open to the Haryana Public Service Commission to say that out of the candidates who satisfy the eligibility criterion of minimum 45 per cent

marks in the written examination, only a limited number of candidates at the top of the list shall be called for interview. And this has necessarily to be

done because otherwise the viva voce test would reduced to a farce. It is indeed difficult to see how a viva voce test for properly and satisfactorily

measuring the personality of a candidate can be carried out, if over 1300 candidates are to be interviewed for recruitment to a service. If a viva voce

test is to be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner, as it must be in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of a

candidates, the interview must take anything between 10 to 30 minutes. In fact, Herman Finer in his book on ""Theory and Practice of Modern

Government"" points out that ""the interview should last at least half an hour"". The Union Public Service Commission making selections for the Indian

Administrative Service also interviews a candidate for almost half an hour. Only 11 to 12 candidates are called for interview in a day of 51/2 hours. It

is obvious that in the circumstances, it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test if such a large unmanageable number of over

1300 candidates are to be interviewer. The interviews would then tend to be casual, superficial and sloppy and the assessment made at such

interviews would not correctly reflect the true measure of the personality of the candidate. Moreover, such a course would widen the area of

arbitrariness, for even a candidate who is very much lower down in the list on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination, can, to borrow

an expression used by the Division Bench, 'gate-crash' into the range of selection, if he is awarded unduly high marks at the viva voce examination. It

has therefore always been the practice of the Union Public Service Commission to call for interview, candidates representing not more than twice or

thrice the number of available vacancies. Kothari Committee's Report on the 'Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods for the Civil Services

Examination' also points out, after an in depth examination of the question as to what should be the number of candidates to be called for interview :

The number of candidates to be called for interview, in order of the total marks in written papers, should not exceed, we think, twice the number of

vacancies to be filled.. .

Otherwise the written examination which is definitely more objective in its assessment than the viva voce test will lose all meaning and credibility and

the viva voce test which is to some extent subjective and discretionary in its evaluation will become the decisive factor in the process of selection. We

are therefore of the view that where there is a composite test consisting of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the number of

candidates to be called for interview in order of the marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the

number of vacancies to be filled. The Haryana Public Service Commission in the present case called for interview all candidates numbering over 1300

who satisfied the minimum eligibility requirement by securing a minimum of 45 per cent marks in the written examination and this was certainly not

right,

Learned counsel for the RPSC has also relied on judgment of this Court in Ravi Kumar Vs. State (SB Civil Writ Petition No.15701/2016) wherein this

Court observed as under:-

Consequently, this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction, shall cause no interference in the policy decision of the RPSC, which is in the consonance

with the mandate given by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra). Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the

same is dismissed"".

It is submitted that to maintain quality of interview and process of selection, decision was taken to call the candidates in the ratio 1 : 1/5. After the

voluminous number of candidates having same marks, the ratio has raised upto 1 : 1.92. Additionally, it was submitted that while disposing of the writ

petition of Surghan Singh (supra), the Court noticed the submissions of learned Advocate General after noticing the newly substituted rule 15 of the

Rules of 1999 that the notification shall be given full effect.

Learned counsel for the RPSC further asserted that the RPSC has declared the result of RAS Mains Examination in accordance with the notification

dated 09/06/2020.

Mr. SS Raghav, learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted written submissions and it is stated that the RPSC is having power to fix

minimum qualifying marks in the main examination for summoning the candidates for interview. He relies on following paras of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in S.B. Mathur & Ors. Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court & Ors. : AIR 1988 (SC) 2073:-

The Bench, however, went on to hold that. in its view, merely because the Haryana Public Service Commission had called all the 1300 candidates

who obtained 45 per cent or PG NO 791 more marks in the written examination to appear in the interview that did not invalidate the selection made.

This decision points out that the minimum eligibility qualification has to be kept distinct from the zone of consideration and even if there are a large

number of candidates who satisfy the minimum eligibility requirement it is not always required that they should be included in the zone of consideration,

it being open to the authority concerned to restrict the zone of consideration amongst the eligible candidates in any reasonable manner.

It has been further submitted that it is for the RPSC to decide about the ratio depending upon various factors considered relevant by it for calling

candidates for interview. Such action of the RPSC does not warrant any interference. Learned Counsel relies on the judgment in Rajasthan Public

Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Dr. (Miss) Damyanti Dadhich etc.: 1983 RLR 473; Gujarat State Sales Tax Non Gazetted Employees' Association

Vs. The State of Gujarat & Anr.: (1997) (1) SLR 452 andM adhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Anr.: (1994) 6

SCC 293. He also relied on judgment of this Court in Dr. Narpat Singh Vs. RPSC & Anr: 1996(3) WLC 243 to submit that the RPSC is the expert

body and is entitled to fix criteria for shortlisting within the purview of the concerned body and stressed on Para 5 of the judgment which reads as

under:-

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission being expert body is entitled to fix the criteria for short listing which is within the purview of the concerned

body. Their lordships of the Supreme Court also in - a decision reported in : AIR 1988 SC 2073 have held that an authority can restrict zone of

consideration in a reasonable manner if so many candidates satisfy minimum eligibility requirement and all need not to be considered. In view of this,

no interference is called for. That apart this Court is identical matter pertaining to different subject arising out of the same advertisement in S.B.C.W.

Petition No. 13-13/95, has already dismissed the writ petition on 20.4.1995 (K.C. Sharma & Anr. vs. State & Anr.) which has been affirmed by the

Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 423/95 (Def.) decided on 27.4.95. Under these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this

writ petition. The ad-interim order dt. 17.7.1995 directing the respondents to issue provisional interview letter to the petitioner, stands discharged. The

petitioner cannot take advantage of the interview being given by him in pursuance of the interim order dt. 17.7.95 since it was made clear that the

same will be subject to the decision of the writ petition.

He also relied on Para 60 of the judgment in the case of Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors. Vs. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors. : (2006) 10 SCC 26 1which

reads as under:-

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that while GOMs No. 164 and 133 are not invalid, GOMs No. 200 is. The Commission was, thus,

statutorily enjoined to interview only such candidates who had passed the written examination in 1:50 ratio. Only upon short listing the said candidates,

the interview can be held at the ratio of 1:2.

I have considered the submissions.

The scheme of examination, personal and viva-voce test for the combined competitive examination of RAS & RTS Examination, 2008 was the

rule which was existing on the day the advertisement was issued. As per the scheme of examination advertised, the combined competitive test was to

be held in two successive steps i.e. preliminary examination and mains examination. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination were not to be

included for the mains examination and thus served as a screening test only. At the stage of preliminary examination, Rule 15, which existed in 2018,

laid down as under:-

Scheme of Examination, personality and Viva-voce Test. - The Competitive Examination shall be conducted by the Commission in two stages i.e.

preliminary Examination and Main Examination as per the scheme specified in Schedule III. The marks obtained in the preliminary Examination by the

candidates, are declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination will not be counted for determining their final order of merit. The number of

candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination will be 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies (category wise) to be filled in the year

in the various services and posts; provided they are other eligible, but in the said range all those candidates who secure the same percentage of marks

as may be fixed by the Commission for any lowest range will be admitted to the Main Examination:

Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion shall be

summoned by them for an interview. The Commission shall award marks to each candidate interviewed by them, having regard to their character,

personality, address, physique and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. However for selection the Rajasthan Police Service Candidates having ""C

certificate of N.C.C. will be given preference. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the Main Examination by each such

candidate:

Provided that the commission, on intimation being received from the Government before declaration of the result of the Preliminary Examination, may

increase or decrease the number of vacancies advertised.

The aforesaid Rule has been amended with retrospective effect vide notification dated 09/06/2020 and has been made applicable on the

examinations of 2018 and now the said part of Rule 15 has been renumbered in the new Rule as Rule 15.2 as under:-

15(2) The number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination will be fifteen times the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in

the year through the examination but in the said range all those candidates who secure the same marks as may be fixed by the Commission for any

lower range will be admitted to the Main Examination:

Provided that, if the Commission is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates belonging to reserved category are not available on the basis of

general standard for appearing in the Main Examination, relaxed standard may be applied by the Commission for admitting candidates belonging to

such reserved category so that sufficient number of candidates in that category are available to appear in the Main Examination. For this purpose, the

zone of consideration of 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies shall stand relaxed. However, candidates so additionally qualified for the

main examination will be eligible for selection to the posts reserved for respective categories only.

Provided further that in case of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination 2013, 2016 and 2018, process for which

has already been completed or commenced, candidates belonging to reserved category called by the Commission in excess of 15 times the posts

reserved for respective reserved category for appearing in the main examination, as candidates of respective reserved categories, because of having

secured equal or more marks than the cut-off marks for general category in preliminary examination for that year, shall be considered qualified for

appearing in the main examination for that year.

Note: For the purpose of this rule ""reserved category"" means any such category for which reservation, either horizontal or vertical is applicable.

From above, it is thus apparent that for admitting students to the mains examination, the result has to be declared of the preliminary examination

fifteen times of the posts reserved for respective reserved category and such reservation would be either horizontal or vertical.

A look at the advertisement shows that there are categories namely; General (Male), General (Female), General Female-DV General Female-WD

and similarly, SC (Gen.), ST (Female), SC (Female-WD); ST (Gen.), ST (Female), ST (Female-WD); OBC (Gen.), OBC (Female), OBC (Female-

WD); MBC (Gen.), MBC (Female), MBC (Female-WD); BL/LV/HI, LD, CP, Ex-servicemen, Sportsmen; NGE and DC of candidates like;

Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service; Rajasthan Commercial Tax Subordinate Services, Rajasthan Food and Civil Logistic Subordinate Services,

Rajasthan Cooperative Services, Rajasthan Labour Welfare Subordinate Services.

Thus, as per the new Rule 15(2) as framed under Rule 15 as notified on 19/06/2020 which has been made applicable retrospectively from 2013

and has therefore, become applicable on the on-coming examination of 2018, the preliminary examination result was required to be notified

accordingly.

A look at Rule 15, as it existed prior to the notification dated 09/06/2020, mentions following scheme for the mains examination:-

Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the mains examination shall be summoned by them for an interview. The marks awarded

by the RPSC to candidates in interview shall be added to the marks obtained in the mains examination.

As per the aforesaid scheme, the RPSC was required to declare a common qualifying marks for all candidates who were to be called for

interview. At the stage of mains examination, all the candidates are on the common platform and they all have to secure the minimum benchmarks or

qualifying marks as it may be fixed so that they may appear for the interview. Such candidates, who are appearing for interview, ought not be

identified individually into different categories. It would result in the interview becoming a farce if the interviewing candidates are called as per

different cut-off marks for different categories. The marks obtained in interview, thus, would have no meaning except to the extent of their own

category.

The document handed over to the Court duly signed by the Section Officer, RPSC, Ajmer reflects that the RPSC has prepared separate cut-off

marks for candidates being called for interview in different categories by calling persons 1.5 times to the number of posts. Thus, for example; in TSP

area, against one post available for SC(Gen.), two candidates were called for interview and their cut-off has been separately treated as 316 and

similarly; for ST (Women) where there are two posts, three women candidates have been earmarked for calling for interview and their cult-off marks

have been separately shown as 274.25. Similarly, in TSP are for example, the ST (Female) posts are 25 in number for which 38 candidates have been

earmarked and for ST (Gen.) there are 88 posts in all for which 132 candidates have been earmarked with a common cut-off for all of them. Similarly,

for widows, different cut-offs have been laid down for different categories and for divorcees, different cut-off have been laid down.

It is noticed that the judgment passed in Surghan Singh (supra) was only in relation to the preliminary examination and the same had nothing to do

with the mains examination of 2018. The mains examination was not to be governed by the amended Rule 15 as notified on 09/06/2020 as the

amended Rule 15(1), 15(3), 15(4) and 15(5) having not been made applicable retrospectively and having not been made applicable on the on- going

examination, 2018. Only Rule 15(2) was made applicable which related to preliminary examination alone.

The action of the RPSC, therefore, in declaring different cut- off marks vide its result dated 09/07/2020 for different categories is found to be de-hors

the Rule 15 as it existed prior to notification dated 09/06/2020 and which was tobe applied to the examinations of 2018.

It is to be noticed that even as per the new Rule 15(3) and 15(4) (quoted above), the RPSC did not have power to declare cut-off marks category-

wise for the written examination and it could not have called candidates for interview by preparing cut-off result of main examination category-wise.

Therefore, the assertion of the RPSC to have applied the substituted Rule 15(3) and 15(4) to the present result under on the RAS & Applied Services

Examinations, 2018 is found to be wrong and misleading. The new Rule 15(3) and 15(4) also provide for declaring common qualifying marks for all

categories. The only difference in the new Rule with the earlier existing Rule is that in the present Rule, the method of preparing qualifying marks has

been laid down for all categories and there is a provision for relaxation for SC and ST candidates alone if suitable number of candidates are not

available. Thus, the affidavit of the RPSC is found to be false and contrary to the provisions, as noticed above.

It is noticed that the RPSC, at the stage of written examination itself, has applied reservation which could not have been done as the scheme of

examination is of three stages; preliminary examination, mains examination and interview. The mains examination carries marks in written which are

added to the marks obtained in the interview. If a cut-off is earmarked for each category at the written examination stage, such candidate will only

have an opportunity of selection against the post for that category as only 1.5 times candidates have been called for interview from different

categories.

In Deepa E.V. Vs. Union of India & Ors.: (2017) 12 SCC 68,0 the Supreme Court, after examining the Rules therein, has held that the relaxation

even of age and also attending interview in that category by a candidate who applied under the OBC category cannot claim a right to be appointed

under a general category.

Thus, a candidate, who is called for interview under the reserved category, vertically or horizontal, would not have a right to claim appointment

under general category even though he may fall in merit of open category. Thus, all the other avenues are closed for such a candidate and the action

of the RPSC has resulted in the selection being conducted in a closed window type method meaning thereby each category candidate would be

considered for appointment against that category only on the basis of his written and interview marks. This is neither the scheme of the Rules of 1999

nor the same is the scheme under the new substituted Rule. The contention of the RPSC is thus misleading and the result declared by them is

erroneous.

On account of the benefit of reservation having been provided at the written examination, the candidate cannot shift over to any other category

even though he may secure overall much higher marks. The RPSC has erred in declaring the result of the mains examination category-wise. There is

neither any provision under the earlier Rule 15 nor under the new Rule for declaring the result category-wise.

The action of the RPSC, therefore, in calling candidates for interview by declaring the result category-wise (Horizontal and Vertical) for both

Non-TSP and TSP areas is held to be illegal and de-hors the Rules. Neither the Rule 15, as it existed prior to amendment dated 09/06/2020, allowed

RPSC to declare result category-wise at the stage of mains examination nor the amended Rule allows them.

Category-wise result was to be declared only for the preliminary examination so that different category candidates, who were 15 times in number

to the total number of posts reserved for that category, may be able to participate in the mains examination and interview. The scheme of examination

has been laid down under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the RPSC does not have power to by-pass the Rule by holding a

Full Commission Decision.

In view of above, the result declared by the RPSC of the mains examination dated 09/07/2020 is liable to be quashed. Issue regarding calling

candidates 1.5 times for interview:-

40 Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 allows the Commission to prescribe minimum qualifying marks, as it may be fixed by them in their discretion for

summoning candidates for interview.

The discretion as mentioned in Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 and available to the Commission, is to be exercised with reference to the scheme of

examination. This discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically nor can it be exercised for different reservation categories.

In the previous examination conducted by the RPSC, it used to declare candidates qualified three times the advertised vacancies for interview.

Such a provision is available in various service rules. However, in RAS and Allied Services Competitive Examination Rules, the discretion has been

left to the RPSC.

If a practice is continuing for long, the same cannot be departed only if there is any illegality found thereto or any Rules are framed to make a

departure from the practice. Merely because there is change of Member of the Commission or change of Chairman of the Commission, it cannot be

departed from. The candidates, who appear for examination, as noticed by the Court, repeat several times so that they may be able to get a better

post. Such candidates, who have appeared earlier in the same examination, have an expectation to come within the merit for participating in interview

and expect that they shall be summoned by at least two to three times of the number of posts.

The aforesaid aspect also requires to be looked into from different angle. The candidates who appear for examinations like RAS & Allied

Services, make several attempts. A consistency in examination is necessary and it cannot be gainsaid that different procedure of assessment should

be done merely because there is a change in the Membership of the RPSC or that their Full Commission takes decision differently for different years

of examinations.

In National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan & Ors.: 1998(7) SCC 66, the Apex Court held as under:-

The doctrine of ""Legitimate Expectation"" has its genesis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its departments, in administering the

affairs of the country are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any

iota of abuse of discretion. The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is

akin to violation of natural justice. It was in his context that the doctrine of ""Legitimate Expectation"" was evolved which has today become a source of

substantive as well as procedural lights . But claims based on ""Legitimate Expectation"" have been held to require reliance on representations and

resulting detriment to the claimant in the same way as claims based on promissory estoppel.

In a recent judgment in The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.s.3860-3862 of 2020), the Apex

Court held as under:-

It is one thing for the State to assert that the writ petitioner had no vested right but quite another for the State to assert that it is not duty bound to

disclose its reasons for not giving effect to the exemption notification within the period that was envisaged in the Industrial Policy 2012. Both the

accountability of the State and the solemn obligation which it undertook in terms of the policy document militate against accepting such a notion of

state power. The state must discard the colonial notion that it is a sovereign handing out doles at its will. Its policies give rise to legitimate expectations

that the state will act according to what it puts forth in the public realm. In all its actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner. This

is an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary state action which Article 14 of the Constitution adopts. A deprivation of the

entitlement of private citizens and private business must be proportional to a requirement grounded in public interest.

It is observed that the action of the RPSC in taking decision relating to different examinations differently like calling candidates three times for one

particular examination like Sub Inspectors' Examination and Agricultural Officers/Supervisors' Examination and calling 1.5 times the candidates in the

present selection while calling earlier 2 times the candidates, has done nothing else but creating confusion and further litigation in the Courts.

It is deemed appropriate, therefore, to direct the State Government and the RPSC to now take steps to frame consistent rules for all examinations and

conduct examinations accordingly so that there is a transparency available for all and the litigation also minimizes.

In the judgment passed by this Court in Ravi Kumar Rachhoya Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.15701/2016, decided on

21/11/2016, the Coordinate Bench of this Court was examining the similar issue where the RPSC departed from its earlier practice by calling three

times candidates for interview and called only two times the number of candidates for interview.

In Ravi Kumar Rachhoya (supra), while relying upon judgment in Santosh Kumari Kharadi Vs. RPSC, Ajmer (SBCWP No.7905/2016, decided by

Principal Seat on 06/09/2016, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after examining the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav

(supra), observed as under:-

Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the RPSC taking various factors into consideration, viz., duration

in which recruitment is to be made, number of posts advertised an the various other responsibilities to be performed by it, can decide the number of

candidates to be called for interview, however, in no case number of candidates called for interview can be less than two times of the posts advertised

and more than three times.

The aforesaid judgment has attained finality. A departure to the aforesaid directions could not have been made by the RPSC.

In Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-

We are, therefore, of the view that where there is a composite test consisting of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the number of

candidates, to be called for interview in order of the marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the

number of vacancies to be filled.

The RPSC in its written submissions has stressed that the discretion as provided under the Rule would be in the nature of policy decision of the

RPSC. However, this Court finds that a policy decision cannot be allowed to be changed each year so as to create an indecisive and confusing

atmosphere for candidates. The RPSC has also not declared the qualifying marks for the purpose of calling candidates for interview. A singular

qualifying mark is required to be declared for all candidates as per the present scheme of the Rules.

The law laid down in Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors. (supra), has no application to the present case. The facts of the said case are totally different

from the facts of the present case. The issue involved in that case was that the High Court had directed to increase the ratio from 1:2 to 1:5 which

was contrary to the existing rules. In the said circumstances, the Supreme Court directed to maintain the ratio of 1:2.

Similarly, the judgment cited by learned AAG in the case of S.B. Mathur & Ors.(supra), and the other judgments would have no application to the

present facts and circumstances.

Keeping in view the settled position of law as laid down in Ravi Kumar Rachhoya (supra), this Court finds that a departure from the directions given

by this Court in the said judgment could not have been made by the RPSC in the present examination. Therefore, the action of the RPSC in declaring

the cut-off marks category-wise in a manner to call only 1.5 times the candidates (which has come to 1.92) is held to be illegal and is liable to be set

aside.

Even as per amended Rule, which has been brought into force from 09/06/2020, the qualifying marks were required to be declared for all

candidates singularly. However, if persons from SC/ST category are not found to be available, relaxation upto 5% of such qualifying marks has been

allowed for them alone. Thus, from the facts as noticed above, it is apparent that the RPSC has not applied the new Rule as amended on 09/06/2020

and the affidavit is misleading. The action of the RPSC in laying down different cut off marks for different categories is thus found to be de-hors the

Rule 15 as it existed prior to notification dated 09/06/2020 as well as de-hors the Rule 15(3) and 15(4) as amended and brought into force after

notification dated 09/06/2020. Therefore, the action of the RPSC in declaring cut-off marks category-wise in a manner to call only 1.5 times the

number of candidates which has come to 1.92 is also held to be illegal and is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed with following directions:-

(a) The result of the RAS & RTS Mains Examination, 2018 dated 09/07/2020 is quashed and set aside with further direction to the respondents to

declare result of the RAS & RTS Mains Examination, 2018 afresh by laying down a common minimum qualifying marks for all categories of

candidates in such a manner as to call at least two times the number of candidates against the total posts advertised and further conduct the interviews

accordingly;

(b) The RPSC shall apply Rule 15 as it existed prior to coming into force of the notification dated 09/06/2020 for the RAS & RTS Main Examinations,

2018 as well as to the interview and the final result shall be declared accordingly.

(c) It is held that the new Rule brought into force from 09/06/2020 is applicable only to the extent of Rule 15(2) and the Schedule to the present RAS

& RTS Examination, 2018. The exercise, as above, shall be conducted expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months henceforth. No

costs.