Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS judgment disposes of five petitions raising an identical legal issue. Writ Petition 6834/2014, Nanu Ram v. RPSC is taken as a lead case for reference to relevant facts and grounds agitated.
(2.) THE Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) published an Advertisement on 20 -9 -2011 inviting applications online from eligible candidates under the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 (hereinafter 'the 1962 Rules') for appointment to the post of Assistant Conservator Forest (ACF). It is the petitioner's admitted case that in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement the examination for the post in issue was held between 26 -6 -2013 and 30 -6 -2013, wherein the petitioner participated. It appears that on 30 -8 -2013, the RPSC published a corrigendum to the advertisement dated 20 -9 -2011, whereby the candidates seeking the post of ACF were notified that in pursuance to obtaining rule 24 of the 1962 Rules, only those candidates, who secured minimum 35% marks in compulsory subjects and 40% marks in aggregate in whole of the written examination would be called for interview. RPSC thereafter published result of the examination in issue. The petitioner was shown to have secured 28 marks in English, a compulsory subject, and in terms of Rule 24 of the 1962 Rules and RPSC's corrigendum dated 30 -8 -2013, declared unsuccessful and held not eligible for the interview. Having been so declared unsuccessful in the Examination, 2011 for the post of ACF, the petitioner laid Writ Petition No. 17361/2013, inter alia to challenge the prescription of minimum marks of 35% in the compulsory subjects. The petition was dismissed on 26 -9 -2013. A DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 1026/2013 followed. This too was dismissed on 20 -11 -2013. Yet persistent in his grievance of having failed, the petitioner filed a review petition now seeking to agitate an additional ground that the entire selection process for the post of ACF pursuant to Advertisement dated 20 -9 -2011 was vitiated on the ground of inconsistency of the 1962 Rules, under which the recruitment process was undertaken and the Entrance and Training Rules (Revised), 2004 (hereinafter 'the 2004 Rules) issued by the Central Government after consultation with the State Governments. The said review petition No. 217/2013 was disposed of by the Division Bench of this court granting on the askance of the petitioner, liberty to challenge by way of a fresh petition the recruitment process for the post of ACF under Advertisement dated 20 -9 -2011 for reason of its alleged non compliance with the 2004 Rules, issued by the Central Government. Hence this second round of litigation.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has submitted that the RPSC has committed a gross legal error in conducting the selection process for ACFs by confining it to the 1962 Rules, ignoring the mandate of the 2004 Rules. It has been submitted that the training Rules, 2004 being Central Government Rules, to the extent the 1962 Rules are repugnant thereto, they would be overridden by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and the Rules of 2004 prevail. Referring to rule 9 and 11 of the 2004 Rules, it has been submitted that RPSC was under an obligation to prepare the merit list of candidates who appeared at the Examination, 2011 between 26 -6 -2013 and 30 -6 -2013 on the basis of "total number of marks" obtained in written examination and that such "total number of marks" should have been ascertained in respect of all candidates, irrespective of their having not or having obtained minimum of 35% marks in the compulsory papers, such as in English. It has been submitted that exclusion of applicants, who failed to secure minimum 35% marks in the compulsory subject of English with reference to rule 24 of the 1962 Rules was thus wholly illegal as they were left out from the select list despite higher aggregate marks. It has been submitted that a combined reading of rules 4 and 11 of the 2004 Rules does not require adherence to any minimum marks in any compulsory paper for determination of inter se merit of the competing candidates. It has also been submitted that the 2004 Rules also find support in the rule 29 of the 1962 Rules, which provides that all candidates selected under Rule 28 on the basis of their merit in the select list prepared may be sent for training. It has been submitted that in this view of the matter the select list prepared by the RPSC under Rule 25 of the 1962 Rules and the selection made by the Government under Rule 28 of the 1962 Rules thereafter are vitiated for reason of the petitioners' exclusion despite having secured higher marks in the aggregate, than the selected candidates - all on count of the illegal requirement of minimum marks in the compulsory subject of English.;