Sanjeev Kumar Dixit vs The State of Rajasthan and Another

The appellant-petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar Dixit, has challenged the judgment dated 12.07.2013 passed by a Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.05.2011 the Rajasthan Public Service Commission [R.P.S.C., for short] had issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk [L.D.C., for short] in the Secretariat and other Departments. According to this advertisement, the selection was to be conducted in two phases: in Phase-I, there were two papers of 100 marks each; in Phase-II, candidates, three times the number of posts, were to be invited from those who had secured minimum of 40% marks in each paper of Phase-I.

Since the appellant-petitioner was eligible for the said post, he applied for the same. He appeared in Phase-I Examination whose result was declared on 02.02.2012. According to the result, he had secured 59 marks in Hindi, and 39 marks in General Knowledge. Thus, he has secured an aggregate of 98 marks out of 200. Since he had not secured minimum of 40% marks in one of the two papers, he was not permitted to take the Phase-II Examination. Since the appellant-petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the R.P.S.C., he submitted a representation before it. He pointed out the fact that in cases of person similarly situated as him, this Court had passed interim orders allowing the candidates who has secured less than 40% minimum marks to sit in Phase-II Examination. However, the representation did not elicit any response from the R.P.S.C.

Therefore, the appellant-petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3333/2012. By an interim order dated 16.03.2012, the petitioner was allowed to appear in Phase-II Examination. But according to the petitioner he could not clear the typing test as he was unprepared for the same.

Meanwhile, on 06.11.2012, in the case of Prem Singh Rathore Vs. R.P.S.C. & Other [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16714/2012], this Court directed the R.P.S.C. to issue a revised result. Consequently, according to the revised result, the appellant-petitioner had secured 40% marks in both the papers. However, despite this fact, he is not being permitted to appear in Phase-II Examination, as he has already availed a chance of appearance in Phase-II Examination under the interim order of this Court. Hence, the writ petition was preferred before this Court. However, by judgment dated 12.07.2013, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition. Hence, the present special appeal before this Court.

Mr. Banwari Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, has contended that initially a mistake was made by the R.P.S.C., and the same was corrected by this Court in the case of Prem Singh Rathore [supra] by its order dated 06.11.2012. According to the revised result, the appellant-petitioner had secured 40% marks in both the papers. Therefore, he should be given a chance to appear in Phase-II Examination. Secondly, since it was uncertain whether he would be permitted to sit in the examination or not, while he filed his first writ petition before this Court, the appellant could not prepare for the typing test. Therefore, he was unable to clear the same. But this time, he is well prepared for the test. Therefore, a second opportunity should be given to him for appearing in the Phase-II Examination.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, and perused the impugned order.

Whether the appellant-petitioner was declared eligible and then permitted to sit in Phase-II Examination, or whether he was permitted to sit in the Phase-II Examination on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court, is immaterial. What is relevant is the fact that the appellant was given a chance to appear in Phase-II Examination, and to show his mettle, and to pass the examination. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to claim that when a chance was given to him, he was unprepared to face the examination. In case, he were unprepared to face the examination, there was no valid reason for him to approach this Court, and to seek its help.

Moreover, as noted by the learned Single Judge, the position would be same. Even now the examination is scheduled to be held on 20.07.2013. The judgment was passed by the learned Single on 12.07.2013 i.e. the appellant would have had only eight days for the preparation of the examination. The period is insufficient for a candidate to prepare. Even today, he has only twenty-four hours for preparing for the examination. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by giving the appellant an opportunity to sit in the examination at such a belated stage.

Lastly, the appellant cannot claim that having once sat in the Phase-II Examination, he has a further right, fundamental or civil, to sit in the examination, all over again. Thus, none of his rights are being violated by the action of the R.P.S.C. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present special appeal: it is, hereby, dismissed. Upon dismissal of the special appeal, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive; the same is also dismissed.