Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
MONIKA V/S THE RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, decided on Tuesday, August 30, 2016.
[ In the High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Civil Writ Petition No. 4690 of 2016. ] 30/08/2016
Judge(s) : M.N. BHANDARI
Advocate(s) : S.P. Sharma, Sr. with Abhishek Pareek, Tanveer Ahmed, Ashok Gaur, Senior , Shobhit Tiwari. Arpit Srivastava, Dy.G.C., S.N. Kumawat, Shantanu Kumawat.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2017 (1) WLC 681"  ==   ""  







    1. This bunch of writ petitions involve common question of law and facts thus has been heard together and decided by this common judgment.2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the RPSC) issued an advertisement to invite applications for appointment to the post of Veterinary Officer. The advertisement was to fill 350 posts. A corrigendum was however issued on 30.04.2015 whereby 175 posts were increased totalling 525 posts. The petitioners appeared in the selection for the post in question but have been declared ineligible vide the impugned order. It is precisely on the ground that petitioners failed to submit prof regarding their appearance in the final year examination of the required educational course for the post of Veterinary Officer.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that impugned order has been passed by the RPSC in ignorance of the terms of the advertisement. A candidate was eligible to apply for the post if he was appearing or appeared in the final year of required educational course. In the advertisement there was no condition that one should have appeared in the final year examination of the required educational course. In view of above impugned order is contrary to the advertisement thus deserves to be set aside.4. It is further submitted that petitioners had taken admission in the required educational course and pursuing studies of fourth year examination at the time of submission of application form and joined final year course soon thereafter. As per the advertisement petitioners were required to produce certificate of required educational course on or before the date of interview. All the petitioners had completed required course before the date of interview thus should not have been rendered ineligible.5. It is lastly contended that initially 350 posts were advertised by the RPSC but it was increased by 175 posts later on. Those additional posts are of subsequent period. If petitioners were not eligible against 350 posts initially advertised on 02nd June 2013 as they had not entered into final year of the course or examination then for increased 175 posts they cannot be held ineligible being the posts of subsequent years and by the aforesaid time petitioners had appeared or appearing in the final ear examination of the required educational course. Their candidature may be considered at least against 175 posts so increased by the respondents subsequently.6. Learned counsel for the RPSC as well as the State Government have contested the petitions. It is submitted that as per the amended rule a candidate was made eligible to apply for the post if he/she is appearing or appeared in the final year examination. In the advertisement the word examination could not appear but then what will prevail in the Rule. As per Rules petitioners were required to have appeared or appearing in final year examination of required educational course so as to become eligible to apply for the post. None of the petitioners had appeared or were appearing in final year examination of the required course thus were not even eligible to apply for the post. As per the amended rule a candidate was made entitled to apply for the post if he/she is appearing or appeared in the final year examination subject to condition of submission of certificate of passing of required qualification on or before the written tet or interview as the case may be. The petitioners no doubt completed the course before the date of interview but they did not qualify the first condition of appearing or appeared in the final year examination of the required educational course so as to become eligible for submission of application form. In view of above petitioners were rightly held ineligible for the post in question. The issue in reference to selection in question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3271/2016 decided on 16th August 2016 at Principal Seat Jodhpur. The writ petition therein was dismissed thus these petitions may be covered by the judgment supra.7. It is further submitted that initially 350 posts were advertised but in view of the proviso to Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules 1977 (for short the Rules of 1977) the State Government was authorised to send intimation of additional requirement not exceeding 50 percent posts to the posts advertised. The total vacancies as on the date of advertisement were more than 350 posts and realising the aforesaid a requisition was sent for additional posts limiting it to 50 percent of the posts so advertised. The available vacant posts as on the date of advertisement were 753.8. The bifurcation of vacant posts has been detailed out in the note sheet. 553 posts were lying vacant up to the year 2009-10 and thereupon 100 vacancies were created vide order dated 18th May 2010 and thereafter vide order dated 18th May 2011 100 vacancies were further created as per the budget of the year 2011-12. The total available vacant posts were thus 753 but the advertisement was initially issued only for 350 posts. The enhancement of 175 posts was not due to new vacancies after the date of advertisement but are of the previous years hence the petitioners' claim for appointment against 175 posts is also not made out. The writ petitions may thus be dismissed for the reasons given above.9. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.10. The RPSC issued on advertisement on 02th June 2013 inviting applications for 350 posts of the Veterinary Officer. A candidate was made eligible to apply for the post if he was appearing or had appeared in the final year of the required educational course. The petitioners applied for the post but have been rendered ineligible by the RPSC. It is on the ground that none of the petitioners could produce documents to show appearance in the final year examination on or before the last date of submission of application form. The order aforesaid has been assailed by the petitioners on many grounds.11. It would be gainful to refer relevant provisions before dealing with the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. The controversy raised in these writ petitions is regarding eligibility. For the aforesaid purpose a reference of amended Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules 1999 (for short Rules of 1999) has been given thus it is quoted hereunder for ready reference :Amendment-In the existing rule as mentioned in Column Number 3 against each of the Service Rules as mentioned in Column Number 2 of the Schedule appended herewith the following proviso shall be added namely-Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the course which is the requisite educational qualification for the post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for direct recruitment shall be eligible to apply for the post but he/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification to the appropriate selection agency-(i) before appearing in the main examination where selection is made through two stages of written examination and interview;(ii) before appearing in interview where selection is made through written examination and interview;(iii) before appearing in the written examination or interview where selection is made through only written examination or only interview as the case may be.12. The proviso inserted to the Rule makes a candidate entitled to submit application form if he/she has appeared or appearing in the final year examination of a requisite educational qualification for the post. Further condition is to submit proof of the acquisition of the educational qualification on the date of written examination or the interview as the case may be.13. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1977 is also quoted hereunder for read)] reference :16. Inviting of Applications-Applications for direct recruitment posts in the Service shall be invited by the Commission or the Appoint Authority as the case may be by advertising the vacancies to be filled in the official Gazette or in such manner as may be deemed fit:Provided that while selecting candidates for the vacancies so advertised the Commission or the Appointing Authority as the case may be intimation of additional requirement not exceeding 50% of the advertised vacancies is received by them for selection also select suitable persons to meet such additional requirement.14. The advertisement issued by the respondent RPSC is also relevant and Note appended in para 3 of the advertisement is quoted hereunder for ready reference :uksV&1- 'kklu ls fjDr inksa dk la'kksf/kr foLr`r oxhZdj.k izkIr gksus ij ;Fkk le; tkjh dj fn;k tk xkA vkj{k.k dh fLFkfr oa fu;qfDr izfdz;k jkT; ljdkj us funsZ'kksa uohure fu;eksa ds v/;/khu ifjorZuh; gksxhA2- mDr inksa dh visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk ds vafre okZ esa lfEefyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr Hkh vkosnu djus ds fy ik= gksxk] fdUrq mls vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr lk{kkRdkj ls iwoZ 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxk] vU;Fkk og vik= gksxkA15. As per para 3 of the advertisement requirement was to appear or appeared in the final year. The word examination appears in the Rule is missing therein.16. The first question for my consideration is as to whether advertisement issued by the respondents can be read in contradiction to the Rule or a harmonious consideration has to be drawn so that the advertisement remains in consonance to the Rules. It goes without saying that Rule would prevail. Any order or advertisement contrary to the Rule cannot be read in contradiction. If the Rules and advertisement are read together then Note appended to para 3 of the advertisement should mean that a candidate would be eligible to apply for the post if he has appeared or appearing in final year examination of the required course. In the light of the aforesaid finding now case of the petitioners has to be considered.17. The petitioners are those who were neither appearing nor appeared in final year examination on the last date of submission of application form i.e 30th May 2013. In the light of the aforesaid they were not eligible to submit application form for the post of Veterinary Officer. The Proviso to the Rule added by way of amendment makes a candidate entitled for submission of application form if he is appearing or appeared in final year examination. The object behind amendment was to allow those candidates who have already appeared in the final year examination or appearing before the last date of submission of application form in view of the fact that result of examination sometimes is delayed depending on the institution. To avoid such contingencies a candidate appeared or appearing in the final year examination is permitted to submit application form.18. The aforesaid is only one condition out of two. If a candidate has appeared or appearing in final year examination of the educational course required for the post then he would be eligible if result it declared on or before the written test for selection if it is based on written test alone and if it is based on interview then as on the date of interview. If it is based on written test and interview both then on or before the date of interview. The petitioners are those whose result was declared on or before the date of interview that they were not eligible to apply for the post as were not appearing or appeared in final year examination of required educational course. The respondent RPSC however rejected their candidature by holding that petitioners did not submit any document to show their appearance in the final year examination on or before the last date of submission of application form. The reasoning aforesaid is not tenable because as per Rule it was not necessary that one must have appeared in the final year examination on the last date of submission of application form rather Rule permits application if one is appearing in the final year exams.19. This Court is however under an obligation to decide the case in the light of the statutory provisions and the facts available on record.20. The facts available on record show that petitioners were neither appearing nor appeared in the final year examination on the date of submission of application form or even on the last date for it. In view of above they were not eligible to apply for the post as per the amended provision. In view of above impugned order of the RPSC has to be read in reference to the Rules.21. The petitioners have raised another issue in reference to enhancement of vacant posts by 175. Initially 350 posts were advertised and it is said to be existing till 02nd June 2013. According to the petitioners 175 posts were fresh thus corrigendum in advertisement was issued in the year 2015 to enhance the posts and for those posts crucial date of appearing or appeared in the final year examination of required educational course should be different than shown in the initial advertisement.22. In reference to the argument aforesaid a direction was given by this Court to the State Government to clarify the date of existence of 175 posts so increased.23. An additional affidavit has been filed along with document to show that in all 753 posts were available on the date of advertisement but out of it only 350 posts were advertised. As per Rule 16 of the Rules of 1977 the Government was authorised to send the intimation for additional requirement not exceeding 50 per cent to the advertised vacancies. Keeping in mind the limitation aforesaid only 175 posts were increased to keep it upto 50 per cent to the initial posts so advertised. The Government could not have sent requisition for additional posts beyond 175 though vacancies were much more than aforesaid in view of the additional affidavit and the documents placed on record the increase of vacancies are not of the year subsequent to the date of advertisement but are of the previous years. In view of above petitioners cannot have claim against increased vacancies as it has been increased in pursuance of the proviso to Rule 16 of the Rules of 1977. It has to be considered vacancies on the date of advertisement.24. In view of above petitioners cannot be held eligible as neither they were appearing nor appeared in final year examination on or before last date of submission of application form. The controversy decided herein was before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Manoj Kumar & Ors. (supra) Therein the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 16th August 2010 thus judgment aforesaid also applies to the present writ petitions as it is for the same recruitment and on the same issue.25. In view of discussion made above I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Hence all the writ petitions are dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed.