Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal on behalf of appellants is directed against common judgment dated 14.12.2012 of learned Single Judge whereby a bunch of twelve writ petitions was allowed in part. The appeal has been filed on the ground that by the impugned judgment, the interest of large number of persons, who have been selected in selection process conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the posts of Accountant (Grade Pay Rs. 3600/ -) and Junior Accountant (Grade Pay Rs. 3200/ -), would be affected, who were not party to the writ petitions.
(2.) DISPUTE pertains to direct recruitment on the post of Accountant and Junior Accountant in the Accounts Department under the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963. An advertisement was published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'the RPSC') for filling up 394 vacancies of the post of Accountant and 924 vacancies of the post of Junior Accountant. The advertisement was issued after amendment introduced in the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963, vide amendment notification dated 05.07.2011. By this amendment, additional qualification for the post of Accountant and Junior Accountant was introduced and the existing Schedule -II appended to the said Rules was substituted by the new Schedule -II, which provided scheme of papers for the combined competitive examination for the posts of Accountant, Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant. As per the new scheme, the competitive examination shall include two papers, namely, Paper -I and Paper -II and each would carry maximum 450 marks. It was further provided that every correct answer would carry three marks and there would be minus marking of one mark for every incorrect answer. It was further provided that a candidate would have to score minimum of 35% marks in Paper -I and Paper -II, each, and 40% marks in aggregate and relaxation in minimum marks upto 5% will be applicable to the candidates of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. There was no weightage for viva voce. The RPSC initially declared the result on 09.05.2012 and the cutoff marks for various categories were declared on 16.05.2012. When the writ -petitioners -respondents did not find their names placed in the merit list prepared by the RPSC on the basis of result declared on 09.05.2012, they challenged the result by way of filing separate writ petitions alleging that there were several wrong questions and answers and prayed that bonus marks should be awarded to them. The writ petitions were decided by learned Single Judge vide separate orders requiring the writ -petitioners -respondents to submit detailed representation to the RPSC, which was to decide the same and, if necessary, by constituting an expert committee for assessing the grievance regarding wrong questions and wrong answers etc. In pursuance thereof, the writ -petitioners -respondents submitted a detailed representation to the RPSC raising their grievance. Thereupon, the RPSC issued revised result on 27.09.2012. In the revised result, the RPSC issued revised cutoff for the Paper -I and Paper -II. The revised result indicated that the result had been revised because of change in answer keys based upon the expert committee's report, which was constituted under the order of learned Single Judge of this court. While declaring the original result on 09.05.2012, the RPSC distributed the marks of Paper -I proportionately. Initially the RPSC deleted 21 question in Paper -I, but, on revision in answer -key, the RPSC curtailed the deleted question to 14 in Paper -I and that in Paper -II the deleted two questions have now been raised to nine questions. In the revised result dated 27.09.2012, the RPSC distributed the marks proportionately subject -wise instead of for entire paper. Out of total 1374 vacancies, only 494 candidates came to be selected in the originally declared result dated 09.05.2012 and in the revised result dated 27.09.2012, out of 1374 vacancies, only 436 candidates have been selected. Thus, total 70 candidates were ousted from the merit list and only 19 candidates were brought in. This happened because most of the candidates failed to score minimum qualifying marks in each paper or they could not secure minimum qualifying marks in aggregate. Total 450 marks were divided in remaining 129 questions (150 -21) and thus proportionate value of each correct question was increased as also of the incorrect question was decreased accordingly. The RPSC this time in the result dated 27.09.2012 distributed the marks subject -wise in the entire paper. For example, in the English subject six wrong questions were deleted out of 25 questions, thus there remained only 19 questions and 75 marks were divided amongst 19 questions. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to explain this position with the help of Schedule -A appended the memo of appeal.
(3.) EARLIER this question was raised before this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11490/2012 - Vinita Gupta v. State of Rajasthan and Others. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 03.08.2012 requiring the petitioner to make a representation to the RPSC and the RPSC was asked to seek opinion of the independent expert body. The RPSC constituted a committee of experts, which, after considering various aspects relating to 20 questions and their weightage, revised the result and accordingly new merit list was published. In this merit list, the appellants herein were selected and were placed much higher in the order of merit and thus became entitled to appointment on the post of Accountant. The respondent No. 3 filed above captioned writ petition stating that the RPSC has deleted 14 questions in Paper -I and that earlier marks were reduced and that total marks cannot be permitted to remain the same. Stand of the RPSC before the Court was that it has done so in compliance of the order of this court, with the help of experts and 14 questions have been deleted in Paper -I, as a result of which the value of the remaining 136 questions was raised from 3 to 3.30 and 9 questions have been deleted in Paper -II, thus value of each question has been increased from 3 to 3.19. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 14.12.2012 disposed of the writ petition, taking note of the fact that the RPSC, after deleting the questions with wrong answers, in order to give the proportionate weightage to the remaining questions, as the weightage was given for negative as well as positive answers and directed the RPSC to maintain the value of each question and same was to be considered for preparing the merit list. The appellants were higher in the order of merit in the second result and were selected for the post of Accountant but now placed lower in the merit list and have been selected only on the post of Junior Accountant. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants filed the present special appeal before the Division Bench.;