- (1.) This Special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.90 whereby, the Learned Single Judge while interpreting the clause 4 of Sub-rule 2 of rule 4 of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules 1962, hereinafter, referred to as the Rule of 1962 and clause 10 of the form which was required to be filled up by the candidate held that the candidate is not guilty of suppression of any fact and he has correctly informed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer that he has only availed two chances by appearing in the Combined Competitive Examinations held under the Rule 1962.
(2.) It was canvassed by Mr. Joshi that combined as also the separate examinations are held by the R.P.S.C. and, therefore, if any candidate has appeared in the Subordinate Service Examinations separately, he should have given information about that fact also and appearance in that examination is covered by clause (4) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 1962. We are afraid, we cannot accept this contention of Mr. Joshi, sub-rule (2) of rule (4) provides that in order to be eligible to compete at the combined competitive examination, an employee referred to in sub- rule (21), must satisfy the following conditions, namely : "(i)............. (ii)............. (iii)........... (iv) Chances in the Examination:- He shall not be allowed to avail of more than 'three' chances under this rule."
(3.) Sub-rule (2) pertains to combined competitive examination and the examination has been used in singular form both in the sub-rule (2) and also sub-clause (4) and, therefore, it only relates to the availing of the chances as regards the combined competitive examination. It does not relate to any other examination which might or might not have been held under the Rules 1962. This is how the R.P.S.C. has also interpreted the rule because it has sought information from the candidate under clause 10 only about his appearance in the combined competitive examination. It did not seek any information from the candidate as to whether he has appeared or availed any chance in any other examination. When this was the only information sought from the candidate and, he has supplied that information correctly, he cannot be held guilty by suppression of facts. Moreover sub-rule (2) of rule 4 of the Rules of 1962 leads to only one conclusion that it relates to the chances which one has availed so far as the combined competitive examination is concerned. It does not concern other examinations which are held or might have been held by the R.P.S.C. under the aforesaid rules of 1962.;