@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ajay Rastogi, J.@mdashPetitioner had participated in process of selection initiated by Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer (School Education) pursuant to advertisement No. 1/2008-09/dt. 10/05/2008 and after having qualified in screening test, was called for interview but could not be finally selected, approached by way of instant petitions.
2. Main grievance for filing of instant petitions is that under Scheme of Rules, 1970, State Government made amendments in existing Rules 16, 18 and 19 by which Rules 18A, 18B and 19A were added in Rules of 1970 vide notification dt. 01/04/1998 and in terms of Rule 19A, such candidates having obtained minimum qualifying marks in written examination as may be fixed by the PSC in their discretion are to be summoned for interview; and taking assistance thereof, main thrust of Petitioners is that written examination held by the PSC is a part of selection process held pursuant to advertisement impugned herein; and the marks obtained therein by individual applicant are to be added to the marks obtained by them in (School Lecturer) process of interview to be considered for preparation of final select list but Rule 19A of Rules, 1970 being added vide amendment notification dt. 01/04/1998 has not been looked into and taken note of by the PSC while publication of final select/merit list; and their action being in contravention of Scheme of Rules, 1970, select list prepared by PSC, itself, deserves to be set aside, and the PSC may be commanded to prepare fresh select/merit list of all the applicants participated in process of selection impugned herein after taking note of their marks obtained in written examination held in the form of screening test and interview - in absence whereof, action of Respondent-PSC is wholly arbitrary being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also of Rule 19A of Rules, 1970.
3. However, it has not been disputed by Counsel that the controversy involved in the present petitions has been finally decided by this Court vide judgment pronounced today on 03/12/2010 in Civil Writ Petition No. 9283/2010 (Satya Narain Gupta v. State and Ors.) with the following observations:
Main thrust of the submission made on behalf of Petitioners that the marks which they obtained in written test (screening test as the PSC calls it), are not being added while preparation of final select list taking assistance of Rule 19A of (School Lecturer) Rules, 1970, is wholly without substance and stands rejected. Under the Scheme of the Rules, 1970, as observed (supra), the process of selection impugned herein is based only on the interview and a condition was incorporated in advertisement dt. 10/05/2008 of holding screening test with a stipulation that if a large number of applications are received against vacancies advertised, the PSC reserves its right to hold a screening test for short listing the candidates for being called in interview process in the ratio of 1:3. Cl .4 of Essential Note appended to advertisement dt. 10/05/2008 being relevant is quoted ad infra:
Since a large number of candidates applied for, pursuant to Clause VI(4) of advertisement (supra), the PSC took decision to hold a screening test for short-listing candidates in the ratio of 1:3 and all the Petitioners knowing it fully well about afore quoted condition stipulated in Clause VI (4) to the advertisement, had appeared in the screening test and on being qualified therein, appeared for interview in the ratio of 1:3 but since their names were not found suitable in course of interview while (School Lecturer) preparing final select list. None of the Petitioners herein has questioned process of interview and their grievance is that since marks obtained in the written test be added in the total marks obtained in the interview while preparation of select list pursuant to advertisement impugned, which is wholly without substance.
A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Usha Sharma v. State (supra) had an occasion to examine Rule 19 of Rules, 1970 and has also taken note of Clause IV (supra) stipulated in advertisement for holding screening test; and taking note of decision of Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Manjit Singh 2003 (1) SCC 559 observed ad infra:
17. We, therefore, hold that the written test (screening test as the Commission calls it) to shortlist candidates does not suffer any legal infirmity. If the Commission had taken into consideration the marks obtained in the written examination for assessing the merit of the candidates, they would have acted in contravention of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970.
4. In light of the judgment (supra), consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
