AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Instant batch of petitions have been filed arising the self
same question for consideration, hence with the consent of the
parties are being decided by the present order.
The facts with consent have been noticed from S.B.Civil Writ
Petition Nos.16720/2016 & 16010/2016.
The post of Junior Accountant is included in the Schedule
appended to the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules,
1963 (in short ''the Rules, 1963'') and that of Tehsil Revenue
Accountant is included in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan
Revenue Accounts Subordinate Service Rules, 1975 (in short ''the
Rules, 1975'') and vide the amendment Notification dt.05.07.2011,
Schedule-II has been substituted in both the respective Service
Rules, laying down a combined competitive examination for
Accountant, Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant and
in the combined competitive examination, there shall be two
papers and Paper-I shall carry 450 marks with the subjects Hindi,
English, General Knowledge, Everyday Science, Mathematics &
Basics of Computer, which shall be of senior secondary standard
except Mathematics & Basics of Computers, which shall be of
secondary standards and Paper-II shall also carry 450 marks with
the subjects Book Keeping and Accountancy, Business Methods,
Auditing, Indian Economics, RSR Vol.I with selected chapters and
GRR & AR-Part-I. with selected chapters and Paper-II shall be of
the standard of Graduation Level and both the Papers-I & II will be
of objective type with multiple choice questions with negative
marking and one has to qualify with 35% minimum marks in both
the papers and 40% marks in aggregate and relaxation upto 5%
marks will be applicable to SC/ST category candidates and there
shall be no viva voce test.
Although, it is a combined competitive examination for Junior
Accountant & Tehsil Revenue Accountant but the posts are
included in the Rules, 1963 & Rules, 1975 respectively but R.6
proviso (iii) of the Rules, 1963 provides that 12-% of the posts of
Junior Accountants, to be filled in by direct recruitment, have been
reserved for being filled in from amongst the ministerial staff of all
the departments of the Government holding a post in the cadre
substantively, subject to their being found otherwise suitable for
recruitment under the Rules. The relevant R.6 proviso (iii) of the
Rules, 1963, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced
ad infra:-
"PART III - Recruitment R.6. Method of Recruitment. Recruitment to the Service shall be made in the manner specified in column 3 of the Schedule by recruitment in accordance with Part IV of these Rules: Provided that: (i) XX XX XX (ii) XX XX XX (iii) Provided also further that 12-% of the posts of Junior Accountants to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government holding a post in the Cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the Rules. This reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year."
It may be relevant to note that no such reservation for the
ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government holding
a post in the Cadre substantively has been provided for the post of
Tehsil Revenue Accountant included in the Schedule appended to
the Rules, 1975.
The advertisement came to be notified by the Commission
dt.18.09.2013 holding selection for the post of Junior Accountant
and Tehsil Revenue Accountant and on-line applications were to be
filled in terms of the advertisement by the candidates who
intended to participate for the posts of Junior Accountant & Tehsil
Revenue Accountant by 20.10.2013. In the on-line application
apart from other relevant details in regard to his qualification,
marital status, in Cl.10 & 11, a candidate is supposed to disclosed
the various categories to which he is a member and this court
considers it appropriate to quote the relevant instructions one has
to fill while filling the on-line application, which reads ad infra:-
"9. Self-attested document(s) may be asked by commission as and when required along with signed this application form.
Certificates :- Tick Appropriate 1. Age Proof - 2. Qualification proofs - 3. If applicant in Final year of any qualification Exam. Attached Admission receipt/fee-receipt copy. - 4. Caste Certificate if applicable - 5. TSP/Saharia Tribe Area Certificate if applicable - 6. Physically Handicap Certificate (Blind/Low vision/Visually Handicapped/Hearing impairment/Loco-motive/C.P.Disorder etc.) if applicable - 7. Widow/Divorcee concerned certificate if applicable - 8. Ex.Serviceman certificate if applicable - 9. Departmental candidate certificate if applicable - 10. Ministerial Employee/Non-Gazetted Employee certificates if applicable - 11. Govt.service/Panchaytee Raj/Public Sector Employees certificate if applicable - 12. Outstanding Sportsman certificate(s) if applicable - 13. NCC Cadet certificate(s) if applicable - 14. Other Specification/Qualification certificate(s) if applicable - 15. Experience as per advertisement if applicable - 16. Internship certificate(s) if applicable -"
It may be relevant that S.Nos.10 and 11 to which we are
concerned for the present purpose, those who are ministerial
employee, non-gazetted employee and those who are in
Government service, panchayati raj, public sector employee have
to indicate and tick in the appropriate box. In furtherance of the
advertisement which was initially published, a corrigendum
No.10/2014-15 came to be published by the Commission on
31.10.2014 and below the tabular statement of the post of Junior
Accountant, it was categorically mentioned that 437 posts are
reserved for the ministerial staff and the last date of submission of
on-line application was extended to 21.11.2014 (mid-night) with a
further facility provided that such of the candidates who have
earlier filled their application, if want to change their order of preference or want to edit their application, can do so on
depositing the prescribed fee. Note-8 of corrigendum
dt.31.10.2014 being relevant for the present purpose is
reproduced ad infra:-
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
A further corrigendum No.01/2015-16 was notified in
furtherance thereto on 16.04.2015 because of the change of
vacancies and again the facility was provided to the candidates to
edit their application and the last date was further extended upto
15.06.2015 (mid-night). The note-6 of corrigendum dt.16.04.2015
being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced ad infra:-
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
Under general instructions issued by the Commission which
is on the website, copy whereof is available on record Annex.R-
2/3. In regard to the serving employees of the State Government,
there are certain provisions for relaxation in age/experience for
the ministerial staff, Govt. employees as to what is the procedure
they have to follow, is being available in the general instructions
at Para-4, which reads ad infra:-
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
It appears that as an abundant caution, a press note was
published by the Commission before holding the written
examination and affording facility to the candidates dt.10.08.2016
(Annex.R-2/4) that since the examination being scheduled to be
held on 01.10.2016, a further facility was provided to the
candidates who want to make any edit in their application, may
carry out corrections after depositing the prescribed fee and this
facility was available from 11.08.2016 to 25.08.2016 (mid-night)
with a further specific note that no application thereafter for
editing on-line application shall be entertained. This court
considers it appropriate to quote the press note dt.10.08.2016
released by the Commission providing last & final call to the
candidates to edit their on-line application, which reads ad infra:-
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
It may be relevant to note that under proviso (iii) of R.6 of
the Rules, 1963, 12-% of the posts Junior Accountants, to be
filled in by direct recruitment, have been reserved for being filled
in from amongst the ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government who are holding a substantive post in the cadre and
has to be a member of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices
Ministerial Staff Rules, 1999 or Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial
Service Rules, 1970.
The present petitioners as alleged that they are ministerial
employees but while filling the on-line application there are
separate Cls.(10) & (11), of which reference has been made, the
candidate has to indicate that he intends to appear as a ministerial
employee/non-gazetted employee or as a Government Service/
Panchayati Raj/Public Sector employee for participation in the
selection process but indisputably despite the facility being
available for availing the benefit of reservation of 12-%, as
contemplated proviso (iii) to R.6 of the Rules, 1963, each of them
failed to indicate that he is a ministerial employee in the
department of the Government holding the post in substantively
capacity.
It may be noticed that against 437 vacancies of Junior
Accountant reserved for ministerial employees, in all 3070
candidates submitted their on-line application and participated in
the selection process against 12-% quota reserved for ministerial
staff of the departments of Government.
In the writ petition from which the facts have been noticed -
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16010/2016 [Ramavtar Gupta Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Anr.], there is no averment in the writ petition as
to when the petitioner was appointed as Clerk Gr.II and whether
he is still a member of the Rules, 1999. Same is the case in another writ petition - S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 16720/2016
[Vinay Mohan Kiradoo Vs. RPSC & Ors.], he worked as Lower
Division Clerk in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner
and indisputably he is not a member of the Rules, 1999 and
employees of ministerial cadre in the District Courts are not the
employees working in the departments of the Government entitled
to participate against 12-% quota reserved for ministerial
employees.
Leave apart, the factual matrix from which the facts have
been noticed by this court, either of the petitioner despite an
opportunity being afforded failed to indicate in their on-line
application that he intends to appear as a ministerial employee
availing 12-% quota reserved of Junior Accountant for them, in
reference to which the selection process was initiated by the
Commission.
The written examination was held on 04.10.2016 and the
result of written examination of the post of Junior Accountant &
Tehsil Revenue Accountant was declared/published on 07.11.2016
with cut-off marks & date of birth of all the categories including
that of the ministerial employees according to which the cut-off
marks for ministerial employee for the post of Junior Accountant is
424.33 and date of birth is 20.07.1989.
After the final result being published by the Commission of
the candidates who are selected along with cut-off marks, the
petitioner rushed to this court by filing writ petitions with the
grievance that they have secure more marks than the cut-off marks indicated by the Commission of the category of Ministerial
Employees and this court may direct the Commission to grant
them permission to change their category to Ministerial Employee
and as they secured higher marks then the cut-off marks which
has been notified by the Commission of the category of Ministerial
Employees, they may be permitted to participate in the selection
process and obviously, if they are otherwise found suitable, may
be considered for appointment under the scheme of Rules of
1963.
The main thrust of submission of counsel for the petitioners
is that in the on-line application, it was not that specifically
mentioned/indicated about the category of ministerial employee/
non-gazetted employee and it is all because of ambiguity in the
form the petitioners could not properly indicate in their on-line
application about the category in which they intend to participate
in the process of selection, thus, the opportunity which has been
afforded by the Commission from time to time will not be of any
consequence since it was never made known to the candidates
that there is a reservation for the ministerial employees and they
can independently participate in the process initiated by the
Commission for the post of Junior Accountant and they should not
be made to suffer on account of the faulty description in the on-
line application uploaded by the Commission, the petitioners
should not deprive from their legitimate right of fair consideration
more so when the marks secured in the written examination which
is the basis for final selection is higher than the cut-off marks of the category of Ministerial Employees and as per their marks
secured in the written examination, at least may be considered for
appointment to the post of Junior Accountant.
Reply to the petition has been filed by the Commission and it
has been specifically stated that apart from on-line application
which was initially filled by the candidates pursuant to the
advertisement dt.18.09.2013, it was specifically indicated that 437
vacancies are reserved for Ministerial Employees and opportunity
was afforded to the candidates to edit their application if so desire
and it was not once but at least on three different occasions
opportunity was afforded to the candidates to avail the facility of
editing their on-line application by depositing the prescribed fee
on-line and even when the scheduled of holding written
examination was notified still prior thereto facility was provided to
the candidates to edit their application, if so desired, from
11.08.2016 to 25.08.2016 (mid-night) vide press note
dt.10.08.2016 with a note that since the examination is scheduled
to be held on 01.10.2016, no such facility of editing the on-line
application shall be permitted thereafter and that was a final call
and it was also notified that the candidates may look into their on-
line application and if any column deserves to be edited, they may
edit their on-line application and avail the facility after depositing
the prescribed fee but none of the petitioners availed the facility to
edit his on-line application despite opportunity being afforded prior
to holding of the written examination and they want to switched
over from their respective category to the category of ministerial employee being beneficial after the final result has been declared
only for the reason that they secured higher marks than the cut-
off marks in the category of Ministerial Employees and this cannot
be now permitted at this belated stage and it will certainly take
away the legitimate claim of the candidates who have participated
in the process as Ministerial Employees their rights will certainly
be jeopardized if such a permission is now being granted to the
petitioners.
I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance
perused the material on record.
The facts are not in dispute that all the petitioners filled their
on-line application either initially pursuant to the advertisement
dt.18.09.2013 or after the corrigendum came to be notified at a
later point of time affording facility to the candidates to edit their
on-line application and this fact can be noticed that against 437
vacancies reserved for Ministerial Employees in all 3070
candidates of ministerial staff filled their on-line application
against 12-% quota reserved for ministerial employees and was
open for the candidate to take its own decision while filling his/her
on-line application about the category in which one intends to
participate in the selection process. The on-line application form is
self explanatory indicating the separate categories with an option
for the candidate to select he intends to appear in the category
including Ministerial Employee/non-gazetted employee or in his
vertical reserved category and that leaves no manner of doubt that the self explanatory description was made available to the
candidates when the on-line application was being filled.
At the same time, not once but on three different occasions,
this facility was afforded to the candidates to edit their on-line
application after depositing the prescribed fee and even before
holding the written examination, a press note was again published
by the Commission on 10.08.2016 that those who are still
interested to edit their application, on depositing the prescribed
fee, may avail the facility between 11.08.2016 to 25.08.2016
(mid-night) with a further note that after appearing in the written
examination, no such facility to edit their application will be
afforded.
Either of the petitioner failed to avail the facility afforded by
the Commission on different occasions to edit their on-line
application and indisputably did not appear as Ministerial
Employee and after the result of the written examination was
declared on 07.11.2016 with a separate cut-off marks of the
Ministerial Employees being notified and after ascertaining their
position being higher than the cut-off marks in the category of
ministerial employee rushed to this court and filed the instant
batch of writ petitions with manifold grievances that fair
opportunity has not been afforded to them in editing their on-line
application indicating that they are also Ministerial Employees of
the departments of Government holding a post in the cadre
substantively.
The coordinate Bench of this court while examining the self
same question as to whether a candidate can be allowed to
change its category after declaration of result in a competitive
examination, negated the submissions made by the writ petitioner
in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6669/2012 [Manish Sinsinwar Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.] decided on 03.05.2012 and the
coordinate Bench was of the view that if edit in on-line application
is permitted after declaration of result, no sanctity can be attached
to the selection process & held that after the cut-off marks is
declared of separate categories, any change of category, as
prayed for, would certainly affect the result and if the candidate is
allowed to change or alter his category after declaration of result,
principles of estoppel may apply as it will affect result of the last
candidate selected in the category, with cut-off marks, being
indicated, without he being at fault.
In addition to it, what is being prayed for, in the instant case,
by the petitioner for change of their category in the opinion of this
court is not tenable and there should be more than one reason for
coming to this conclusion. On the face of the clear and
unambiguous instructions contained in the advertisement issued
by the Commission against 437 vacancies of ministerial
employees, in all 3070 candidates of ministerial staff filled their
on-line applications and appeared in the written examination
against the vacancies reserved for ministerial employee and
theory of lack of information or ambiguity in the instructions is an
after thought to shadow their fault and the candidates cannot be allowed to change the category, as claimed, after declaration of
result, even if it is due to a bonafide mistake that wrong column
was ticked by the candidate in the on-line application and he is
bound by such mistake and liable to face the consequences.
In the opinion of this Court, if a different view is taken in the
matter, it will unnecessarily lead to confusion to the Commission in
processing the applications and will also open opportunities for
manipulations in dealing with the face of candidates appearing for
such examinations. It is in public interest that the instructions
contained in the notification published by the Commission are
strictly followed and scrupulously adhered to not only by the
candidates but also by the Commission. Even if the mistake is
considered to be bonafide mistake, larger public interest demands
insistence of observance of instructions rather than its breach and
this court is of the further view that what has been attempted to
be achieved by the instructions was to minimize any possibility or
chance of any abuse.
There may be a situation where the necessary certificates, as
demanded, might not have been annexed in support of the
category indicated in the on-line application but where the
candidate intends to change the category that too after the
written examination being held and declaration of result, it is
certainly not permissible more so when in the instant case ample
opportunity was afforded to the candidates by the Commission to
edit their application, if so desired, even at the stage before the
written examination was scheduled to be held on 01.10.2016.
Indisputably, either of the petitioner does not fall in the cut-
off marks notified in their respective category and that appears to
be the sole reason in harping upon that they being the Ministerial
Employee working in the departments of Government holding the
post in the cadre substantively may be permitted to change their
category after the final result came to be published by the
Commission, which as already observed by this court, is not
permissible and even if it is considered to be a bonafide mistake,
the petitioners are bound by such mistake and are liable to face
the consequences and the petitioners deserve to be considered in
the category which they have indicated in their on-line application
and change at this stage is not permissible and may not be in
conformity with the instructions notified by the Commission.
This court is of the view that when the instructions are in
unequivocal terms and the candidate has to indicate the category
in which he intends to participate in the selection process and
after ample opportunity being afforded if one failed to edit the on-
line application, in absence of any statutory provision to the
contrary, this court is of the view that such request for change of
category after declaration of result deserves to be summarily
rejected.
Consequently, this court finds no substance in the instant
batch of writ petitions and accordingly the same stands dismissed.
No costs.