DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) THESE four writ petitions, involving similar and akin issues in relation to the same process of direct recruitment under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 ('the Rules of 1989'), are taken up for disposal by this common order.
(2.) THE relevant background aspects are that in response to an advertisement dated 25.11.2010, as issued by the Rajathan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, the petitioners of these writ petitions offered their candidature for the post of Sub-Inspector under the Rules of 1989. The petitioners appeared in the written examination for the recruitment in question and having secured the necessary qualifying marks, were called to appear in the physical efficiency test. As per the process of recruitment delineated in Rule 21 of the Rules of 1989, the candidates who are declared successful in the written test and in the physical efficiency test are eligible for aptitude test and interview but the number of candidates to be called in such aptitude test and interview is to be restricted to three times the number of vacancies by way of the merit prepared on the aggregate marks obtained in the written and physical efficiency test. The petitioners having failed to secure the requisite position in the merit so prepared, have not been found eligible for interview. The petitioners now seek to challenge the relevant clauses, particularly those in sub-rule (6) and (7) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1989, which provide for the method of selection after the written and physical test on the ground that the ultimate select list is prepared only on the basis of the marks obtained in the written test and in the interview; and therein, the marks as obtained in the physical efficiency test are not counted. The petitioners contend that the methodology as adopted by the respondents remains invalid when the intervening merit for the purpose of interview is prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the written test and physical efficiency test although the marks of physical efficiency test are not counted in the final merit list. In this position, according to the petitioners, the marks of physical efficiency test are wholly irrelevant for the final merit; and a candidate cannot be deprived of the chance to appear in interview with reference to such irrelevant component of the marks pertaining to the physical efficiency test. Elaborating on the stand of the petitioners, the respective learned counsel have referred to the provisions contained in the Rules of 1989 and vehemently argued that though a candidate is required to secure minimum 50% marks in the physical efficiency test but such a test is otherwise irrelevant for the final merit. The learned counsel contended that in the scheme of the selection process, when the physical efficiency test is only of shorting-listing nature, the marks therein ought not to have been added in the first instance for preparation of the intervening merit for the purpose of interviews. The learned counsel questioned the impugned provisions, particularly that contained in proviso to sub- rule (6) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1989 while relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : AIR 1989 SC 2227 and contended that a proviso cannot undo the theme and operation of the principal provision. It is also contended that the criterion as provided is wholly unreasonable particularly when the proviso is rather repugnant to the other provisions. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Pal Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. : 1995 (1) SCC 532 has also been referred to show that when the relevant attributes were left out of consideration, the selection process was held illegal and unreasonable. After having given thoughtful consideration to the contentions urged and having examined the material placed on record with reference to the relevant provisions of the Rules of 1989, we are clearly of the view that no case for interference is made out. The scheme of the recruitment in question is contained in Rule 21 of the Rules of 1989. In order to appreciate the contentions urged, the entire of Rule 21 could be taken note of as under:- "21.Authority for conducting the competitive examination- (1) The competitive examination for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector in Sections- I and II and Platoon Commander in Section-IV shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Schedule-II appended to these Rules, and for the posts of Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Asstt. Sub-Inspectors in Section-III, shall be conducted by the following Recruitment Boards as constituted by the Director General-cum- Inspector General of Police. (a) For post of Inspectors:- (i) Director General-cum- Inspector General Chairman of Police or his representative not below the rank of Inspector General of Police. (ii) One Deputy Inspector General of Police. Member (iii) Director, Police Tele-Communications. Member (iv) One Technical Expert not below the Status of Class I Officer. (b) For the post of Sub-Inspector:- (i) Inspector General of Police. Chairman (ii) One Deputy Inspector General of Police. Member (iii) Director, Police Tele-Communications Member (iv) One Technical Expert (c) For the post of Asstt. Sub-Inspectors:- (i) Deputy Inspector General of Police Chairman (ii) Director, Police Tele-Communications Member (iii) One Technical Expert Member (iv) One Superintendent of Police. Member Provided that when the post of the Director, Tele- Communications is held by a Deputy Inspector General of Police, he shall act as Chairman of the Board. (2) The syllabus for the examination to be conducted by the Recruitment Board referred to in sub-rule (1) and for the Physical Efficiency Test which shall also be essential prior to interview and aptitude test by the board under rule 25 (2) shall be such as may be prescribed by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police from time to time. (3) Candidates who obtain 36 percent of marks in each paper and 40 percent in the aggregate, shall be deemed to have passed the qualifying examination conducted by the Commission or the Recruitment Board as the case may be. The Commission shall send the list of such successful candidates to the Recruitment Board referred to in sub-rule 6 (a) : Provided that relaxation up to 5 marks will be available to candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in each paper and in the aggregate. (4)(a) The Commission or the Recruitment Board, as the case may be, may order re-totalling of the marks obtained by a candidate during such period as may be decided by the Commission or the Recruitment Board, as the case may be, in their discretion on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the Commission or the Recruitment Board, as the case may be, from time to time but evaluation of the answer paper shall not be re-examined. (b) The Commission or the Recruitment Board, as the case may be, may take steps to rectify such mistakes as are detected on re-totalling of the marks in pursuance of the provisions of (a) above. (c) (i) If as a result of such rectification, in case of Sub- Inspector in Sections-I and II and Platoon Commander in Section-IV, the Commission discovers that the candidate becomes eligible for selection, such fact shall be immediately and in any case not later than 40 days from the announcement of the result, reported to the Recruitment Board and shall stand protanto modified; (ii) If as a result of such rectification, in case of Inspector / Sub- Inspector / Assistant Sub-Inspector in Section-III the Recruitment Board discovers that the candidate becomes eligible for selection, the result announced by the Recruitment Board shall stand protanto modified. (5) All candidates who are declared successful under rule 21 (3) shall be required to appear before a Physical Efficiency Board, consisting of the Director General-cum- Inspector General of Police or his representative not below the rank of Inspector General of Police, One Deputy Inspector General of Police, One Superintendent of Police/Commandant nominated by the Director General- cum-Inspector General of Police for physical efficiency test for various districts or group of districts as may be notified. The physical efficiency test would be vigorous as laid down by the Director General of Police to adjudge suitability of the candidate. The physical efficiency test shall carry 100 marks and the candidate who secure 50% marks therein shall be eligible for selection. (6) Candidates who are declared successful in the written test under sub-rule (3) and in the physical efficiency test under sub-rule (5) shall be eligible for aptitude test and interview. Provided that the number of candidates called for aptitude test and interview shall be restricted to three times the number of vacancies on the basis of merit based on the aggregate marks obtained both in the written and in the physical efficiency test except in the case of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates who shall be eligible for interview in excess of the prescribed limit if they have qualified in the written examination and the physical efficiency test (7)(a) The aptitude test and interview of the candidates qualifying physical efficiency test, shall carry 50 marks. For the posts of Sub-Inspectors in Section-I, II and Platoon Commanders in Section-IV shall be held by a Recruitment Board, which shall consist of the following:- (1) Chairman or Member of the Commission to Chairman be nominated by the Chairman. (2) An Officer of the Police Department Member nominated by the Commission in consultation with D.G. cum-IGP not below the rank of IGP (3) An Officer of the Police Department Member nominated by the Commission in consultation with D.G.-cum-IGP not below the rank of Dy IGP (4) One Psychologist Member nominated by the Commission The Recruitment Board shall award marks to each candidate in respect of suitability to the post, taking into consideration personality, address, tact, behaviour, specialised training, aptitude for the post, judgment, leadership and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test by each such candidate. Candidates holding Degree or Diploma in Criminology or N.C.C. "C" Certificate or who have offered Police Administration as one of the Papers for the degree examination may be given weight. (b) The Recruitment Board, in the case of Inspectors/ Sub- Inspectors/ Assistant Sub-Inspectors, in Section-III, shall thereafter interview and award marks to each candidate, out of a maximum of 50 marks in respect of suitability to the post, taking into consideration personality, address, tact, behaviour, specialized training, aptitude for the post, judgment, leadership and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. The marks so awarded shall be added by the Recruitment Board to the marks obtained in the written test by each such candidate."
(3.) THE sum and substance of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners is that proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 21 ibid., whereby the candidates are to be called for interview on the basis of aggregate of marks obtained in written test and physical efficiency test is ultra vires; and the basis of this contention is the provision as contained in sub-rule (7) of Rule 21 ibid. whereby, the marks awarded in the interview are added only to the marks obtained in the written test and not to the physical efficiency test for final merit. We are unable to agree with the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioners that only for the reason that the marks awarded in the physical efficiency test are not counted in the final merit, the proviso to sub-rule (6) is required to be declared invalid. As to what mode and method of selection is to be provided for which post, is ultimately for the employer concerned to decide. A particular scheme of recruitment cannot be declared invalid by the Court only on the suggestions that some other method was desirable; or that the particular set of marks at a particular stage of the process ought or ought not be provided any particular weightage. All such aspects relating to the process of selection are essentially for the employer to provide; and in the case of the Government taking up any such selection process, the basic requirement is that the provisions therefor ought not be offending the Constitution of India or any other statutory provision. Of course, if there is any such method provided that appears entirely irrational or unreasonable or leaving the scope for arbitrariness, its validity could be examined on the touch-stone of the constitutional scheme; but it is too far stretched to contend that a particular method be declared invalid only because it operates adverse to any particular candidate. We are unable to find the Rules in question suffering from any vice of irrationality, unreasonableness or arbitrariness. Put in a nutshell, the scheme as provided in Rule 21 of the Rules of 1989 appears to be that the candidates are first put to a written test; then, the candidates who obtain minimum qualifying marks in the written test are subjected to the physical efficiency test; and then, the candidates are called for interviews but limiting the number to three times the number of vacancies and for this purpose, a merit based on the aggregate of the marks obtained in written and physical efficiency tests is prepared. However, in the physical efficiency test, a bench-mark of obtaining minimum 50% marks has been provided in order to make a candidate eligible for selection. After calling such restricted number of persons to aptitude test and interview, i.e., three times the number of vacancies, the marks are awarded to the candidates taking into consideration the traits of personality, address, behaviour, aptitude etc. Thereafter, the marks obtained in interview are added to those obtained in the written test for preparing the final merit. ;