AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These intra-court appeals are filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 14th December, 2012. As reveals from the record the post of Accountants & Junior Accountants which are indicated in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 came to be advertised by Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide its notification dt. 6th September, 2011.
As per the advertisement, selection process was initiated against 413 posts of Accountant and 961 of Junior Accountant and the written examination in terms of advertisement was held as per Schedule-II appended to the Rules, 1963.
As per the scheme, the competitive examination is to be held for Paper-I and Paper-II. The Paper-I is a composition of Hindi, English, General Knowledge, Everyday Science, Mathematics and Basics of Computer of 450 marks and Paper-II is composition of subject paper. However, the grievance of appellants is only confined to Paper-I.
After the result of written examination was declared and the cut-off marks of respective categories were disclosed by the Commission, it appears that some complaints were received pointing out that answer of certain questions of Paper-I were incorrect and the matter was examined by the Expert Committee constituted by the Commission and the Committee in its opinion expressed that answer of certain questions were incorrect and as there was negative marking for giving wrong answers, based on the report submitted by the Expert Committee, certain rectifications were made at the same time as regards two questions still left of Paper-I (Series-A) i.e. Questions 13 & 57.
The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petitions observed that as regards left out questions, the same may be examined by the Expert Committee and as per their report, if need arises, result be revised accordingly. However, the appellants have no grievance, as regards first issue considered by the learned Single Judge.
The grievance of appellants is confined to the third issue and the counsel jointly submit that such of the questions be deleted and the applicants'' marking should be based on the remaining questions and not by proportionate increase of value of marks for the remaining questions. Counsel further submits that for the fault committed by the Commission, where the process of negative marking has been adopted, at least the applicants should not be deprived of their legitimate right of fair consideration. It may be noted, at this stage, that good number of applicants failed to qualify against the number of vacancies in the written examination held by the Commission pursuant to the advertisement and the Commission informed that posts are vacant because of the non-availability of qualified candidates in the written examination.
The learned Single Judge taking note of the submission and grievance, in the peculiar facts of the case which came at the stage when the Commission reached at the final stage of the selection process and without treating it as precedent, considered it appropriate to give value of each question as given in the Rules and observed that the marks should be valued based on correct and incorrect answers of each question with the same value as was given at the initial stage and provided under the Rules for determination of minimum percentage of marks required.
What was contended by appellants before the learned Single Judge has been reiterated before us also and we are also of the view that what has been observed by the learned Single Judge appears to be equitable and reasonable and does not call for interference in these intra-court appeals by this court. Consequently, all the appeals being wholly devoid of merit, accordingly stand dismissed.