- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioners submitted their candidature for appointment to the post of Transport Sub-Inspector in pursuance of advertisement dated 15.10.01 issued by RPSC, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (for short as "RPSC"), Petitioners submitted that all the petitioners are eligible candidates and they were declared successful in written examination. Petitioners were also called for interview by the RPSC. The petitioners appeared in the said interview conducted by RPSC. As required by Rule 17(2) of Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1963"), and required by interview letter, the candidates were required to produce their original certificates at the time of interview failing which the candidate could not have been permitted to face the interview and his candidature is required to be rejected by the RPSC. The RPSC instead of rejecting the candidature of candidates, who did not produce the original documents at the time of the interview, included the names of those defaulting candidates in the select list and declared those candidates provisionally selected for the said post. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, in the advertisement issued on 15.10.01 itself, the eligibility and other requirements have been given. In sub-clause(4) of condition no. 13, it is mentioned that all-the candidates should furnish the requisite certificates of eligibility with respect to qualifications before the interview Sub-clause (2) of R.17 also provides that candidates are required to submit the applications and that should be complete in all respects and should be in accordance with instructions issued by RPSC. It is also. provided in sub-clause (2) of R.17 that candidate is required to ensure himself/herself that he/she fulfils all the conditions regarding age, educational qualifications, experience, number of chance, if any etc. etc. as provided in the rules and if the candidate is allowed to take examination it shall not entitle the candidate to take presumption of eligibility. It is provided that Commission shall scrutinise the applications of such candidates only who qualify in the written examination and shall call only the eligible candidates to viva-voce test, if any. Sub-clause (3) of R.17 of the said Rules provides that decision of the Commission in respect of admission of a candidate to an examination, eligibility and consequent admission to viva-voce, if any, shall be final. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the Commission had left with no option but to reject the candidature of those candidates who failed to produce the documents on or before the date of interview.
(3.) It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that RPSC unequivocally again in the interview call letters issued to the candidates very clearly mentioned that, in case candidates will not come with original certificates, their candidatures shall be rejected and will not be permitted to appear for viva-voce test. Emphasis was further given in the interview call letter itself by giving note in block, that candidates should come with all the certificates otherwise they will be declared ineligible, therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, in these circumstances, action of RPSC permitting them to furnish the original certificates subsequent to the date of interview is illegal. It is also submitted that RPSC had no jurisdiction to declare the result as provisional result or declare a candidate selected provisionally. If such candidature of these candidates is rejected, the petitioners who are ranking below those candidates will get selection on the post. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, as per rule 17(2) of the rules of 1963, the candidate is supposed to not only possess the eligibility for the post on the last date fixed for submitting the application but is also supposed to have relevant certificate in his possession, failing which he cannot be treated as a eligible candidate. Therefore, the petitioners prayed that the result declared by the RPSC by including the names of those candidates who did not produce original documents at the time of interview be quashed and RPSC be directed to declare result of the candidates who produced the original documents at the time of interview and if petitioners names find place in select list their names be recommended for appointment to the post.;