- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS petition has been preferred by the petitioners in the year 2007 for declaring adoption and application of scaling method unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the Rules of 1955 in the matter of Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination. Prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to prepare a fresh list of eligible candidates for interviews on the basis of their raw marks secured in the examination. It is averred by the petitioners in the petitions that they appeared in the RJS Examination, 2005 pursuant to the advertisement (P/1). Note No.1 of the advertisement indicates that 27 posts which were advertised, were regarding backlog of year 2001 and 2003. Out of said 27 posts, 6 posts of Scheduled Tribe were temporary, total 21 posts of backlog and 58 posts were created till the Fast Track Courts' Judges continues. These posts were purely on temporary basis. In case of non-availability of posts on discontinuation of Fast Track Courts, the incumbents who were appointed will be discharged. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the scaling which had been resorted to by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'RPSC') was impermissible in RJS Examination. In pursuance of the Notification dated 19.11.2005, no such condition of scaling was mentioned. The matter with respect to the scaling stands concluded by this Court for the Examination, 2005 in Sarita Noushad & 17 ors. Vs. RPSC & Ors. (2009) 4 WLC 679 in which it has been laid down by this Court following the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 720 that in Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, as all the subjects were compulsory, the method of scaling of marks could not have been resorted to. The RPSC was directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for future vacancies as the same relief has been granted by the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh Vs. UPPSC & Anr.(supra). This Court passed the following order in Sarita Noushad & 17 ors Vs. RPSC & Ors. (Supra) thus- "60. Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.10539/2007 filed by Sarita Noushad and another SLP (C) No.10631/2007 while making the further appointments subject to the decision of the writ petitions, on 12.12.2008, requested this Court for early disposal of the writ petition at an early date but the writ petitions could not be disposed of for one reason or the other. As held above, the persons selected and appointed against the vacancies of the RJS Examination, 2005 have worked for one year and a half, therefore, we have not disturbed their appointments. But still, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present writ petitions, the issue remains that most of the petitioners, who have approached the Court in time in 2007, either before interview or just after interview, have suffered on account of scaling which has already been declared illegal while answering Questions No.(i) to (iv) in the affirmative and the delay in disposal of the writ petitions may not be allowed to stand in their way for granting relief for all times to come and simply on the ground that the advertised vacancies have been filled up even after obtaining more raw marks plus interview marks and some of them have also been deprived of interview as per their raw marks and cut off marks worked out on the basis of raw marks in the RJS Examination, 2005. In order to save the petitioners from injustice which has been caused on account of violation of RJS Rules, 1955 and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as discussed in detail in the preceding paras, Question No.(v) is also answered in the manner that Sanjay Singh (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. 61.The ends of justice can only be met out if the petitioners' cases are considered for future vacancies as the same relief has been granted by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh (Supra). Therefore, the writ petitions succeed and the same are allowed as indicated below: (i)RPSC is directed to prepare the list of the candidates of RJS Examination, 2005 as per Schedule-III of the RJS Rules, 1955, to be called for interview as per raw cut off marks for the purpose of ascertaining whether any of the petitioners was entitled to be called for interview in their respective categories. (ii)RPSC is further directed to prepare a list as per Schedule-III of the RJS Rules, 1955, of RJS Examination, 2005, of the petitioners who have obtained more raw marks plus interview marks than the selected and appointed candidates, in their respective categories. (iii)All the petitioners who were entitled for interview as per Schedule-III in the ratio of 1:3 in their respective category as per their raw marks considering the fact of cut off raw marks but have not been called for interview, as per Relief No.(i), be now called for interview along with the candidates to be interviewed for the examination of RJS, 2008 and further, in case they obtain more raw marks+ interview marks than the candidates of the merit list of the RJS Examination, 2005 as per their raw marks + interview marks, then their cases may be considered for appointment against future vacancies and if found suitable, respondents may issue appropriate orders before finalising the selections and appointment pursuant to the RJS Examination, 2008. (iv)The petitioners who have been interviewed but could not be selected on account of scaling down of their marks and scaling up the marks of the selected and appointed persons as referred in Relief No.(ii) and have further obtained more than 45 per cent raw marks + interview marks in the aggregate higher than persons already selected/appointed as per raw marks and interview marks of RJS Examination, 2005 be considered for appointment against future vacancies and in case they are found suitable, then, respondents may issue appropriate orders before finalising the selections and appointment of RJS Examination, 2008." The matter of Sarita Noushad (supra) was travelled to the Apex Court. The RPSC has filed the petitions before the Apex Court and these petitions were decided vide common order dated 5.5.2010. The Apex Court took note of the fact that the High Court has directed that the candidates who have already been appointed by the RPSC, shall not be disturbed and also observed that 8 candidates who had already undergone interview secured more marks than the candidates who were already appointed to the Judicial Service based on raw marks and six other candidates namely, Sarita Noushad, Ashutosh Kumawat, Rajant Khatri, Toshita Verma, Sarita Dhakad and Divya Singhwere not subjected to interview though they have got higher raw marks. They have to be interviewed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. If any one of them is found to be eligible, such candidates are also entitled to get appointment. Eight candidates who had already secured more marks than, the last candidate appointed, should be considered for appointment. It was also ordered that RPSC is to conduct interview of the six candidates within a period of three weeks. The eight candidates, who had already undergone interview, need not be interviewed again. Final list of eligible candidates based on the marks secured by the candidates who were already interviewed and are to be interviewed, shall be prepared and from the said list, appointments on nine vacant posts shall be made in order of merits. Following order has been passed by the Apex Court - "Leave granted. In 2005, Rajasthan Public Service Commission conducted test for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 87 candidates were selected and they were appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in 2007. The Rajashan Public Service Commission had adopted a method of scaling for the purpose of assessment of answer sheets. Because of this, some of the candidates who had obtained less raw marks which were sealed up were called for interview and subsequently selected and appointed. Therefore series of writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the scaling method adopted by the Public Service Commission. The High Court by the impugned judgment has given certain directions and held that the fresh interviews of the candidates to be taken based on their raw marks obtained by them. As regards the candidates who have been already appointed by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the High Court held that their appointments shall not be disturbed. Now, pursuant to the directions of the High Court, it appears that 8 candidates who had already undergone interview secured more marks than the candidates who were already appointed to the Judicial service based on raw marks and six other candidates namely, Sarita Noushad, Ashutosh Kumawat, Rajant Khatri, Toshita Verma, Sarita Dhakad and Divya Singh were not subjected to interview though they have got higher raw marks. They have to be interviewed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. If any one of them is found to be eligible, such candidates are also entitled to get appointment. Eight candidates who had already secured more marks than, the last candidate appointed, should be considered for appointment. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to conduct interview of above named six candidates within a period of three weeks. The eight candidates who had already undergone interview, need not be interviewed again. Final list of eligible candidates based on the marks secured by the candidates who were already interviewed and are to be interviewed, shall be prepared and from the said list appointments on nine vacant posts shall be made in order of merits. We are told that the names of the candidates who were already selected in 2008 are sent for appointment to the Government. Naturally, the appointments pursuant to this order would take place after the appointments of the candidates selected in 2008 but they will be entitled to get seniority after their appointments. The civil appeals are disposed of accordingly."
(3.) MR. Hanuman Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners' marks are more than the last candidate appointed by the RPSC, though they have secured lesser raw marks than the incumbents interviewed and appointed under the orders of the Apex Court and this Court in the case of Sarita Noushad. Since, this Court has directed in Sarita Noushad's case that the petitioners to be interviewed and to be adjusted against the future vacancies, the case of the present petitioners be also considered for future vacancies. Mr. G.R. Punia, Mr. R.L. Jangid, Mr. Khet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court, candidates have been interviewed and vacancies have already been filled. Thus, it is not open to appoint any more candidates in view of the clear order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Directions issued by this Court in Sarita Noushad's case stands superseded by the order passed of the Apex Court. The appointments were subjected to the continuation of the posts of Fast Track Courts, thus there is no scope for directing now to appoint the candidates as against the future vacancies of 2011 or subsequent future vacancies which have to be worked out by the High Court on Administrative side before 15.1.2011. ;