- (1.) THE petitioner, who applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) (Diploma Holder) in response to the advertisement No. 3/2007-08 dated 08.10.2007 as issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer ('RPSC'), has filed this writ petition stating the grievance against the method of selection adopted by the respondents and against the related provisions of the Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 ('the Rules of 1998').
(2.) THIS petition has been placed before the Division Bench for the validity of a part of the Rules of 1998 having been questioned herein. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs in this petition:- "(i) The selection made on the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) (Diploma Holder) in pursuance of advertisement No. 3/2007-08 dated 8.10.2007 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The State of Rajasthan may kindly be directed to amend the Rules of 1998 and insert the provision of taking into the account the marks of written examination as well as interview while preparing the merit list of selected candidates for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) (Diploma Holder) in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kumari Rashmi Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. (iii) The Rules 23 and 24 of the Rules of 1998 may kindly be struck down and declared illegal, null and void on the ground of excessive delegation of power and vagueness. (iv) The RPSC may be directed to disclose the criterion on basis of which marks has been divided in interview. (v) Without prejudice to above all prayers, if the selection is not declared invalid then it is humbly submitted that by an appropriate writ order or direction, RPSC may be directed to revise the selection list for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) (Diploma Holder) after taking into consideration marks of written examination as well as of the interview. (vi) Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled, may be granted in his favour. (vii) The writ petition may be allowed with costs." The petitioner seeks to contend that the Rules of 1998 are required to be amended so as to insert the provision therein of taking into account the marks of the written examination as also of the interview while preparing the merit list; and that the existing Rules 23 and 24 deserve be declared invalid. After having taken into comprehension all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions sought to be made, we are unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition; and find the challenge to the provisions of the Rules of 1998 rather bereft of substance. The Court will not direct the respondents as to what ought to be the Rules for the process of recruitment. It is for the Department concerned, having regard to the requirements of the particular post, to provide as to what would be the process of recruitment. Of course, such process ought to be fair and not suffering from unreasonableness. As per the Rules in question, the Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall scrutinize the applications and call as many qualified candidates as deemed fit for interview; and then, prepare the merit list and reserve list. The referred Rules 23 and 24 do not appear suffering from any such vice wherefor they could be declared illegal or unconstitutional.
(3.) IT is noticed that the petitioner has attempted to question the Rules and the process of selection only after having participated in the process and having taken a chance therein. It was made clear in the advertisement itself that the selections would be made on the basis of interview and a screening test would be held in case the applicants were larger in number. The test in writing having been conducted only for the purpose of screening, the respondents cannot be faulted in not providing the credit towards the marks obtained in such a screening test while preparing the select list. In any case, it has been too late in the day that the petitioner came forward with this challenge to the process of selection after having participated and having taken a chance thereunder. It is also pointed out on behalf of the respondent-RPSC that the selections in question had been concluded long back and select list has already been sent to the Department concerned. There appears no justification now at this stage to interfere with the selections in question. For all the reasons foregoing, we do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition so as to consider issuance of any writ, order, or direction at the instance of the petitioner. ;