Sunil Ambwani, C.J. - (1.) THESE intra -court Special Appeals are directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 26th November, 2014, by which he has interfered with the moderation and scaling method adopted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the selections for Rajasthan Administrative Service -2012 and has given several directions, on his own perceptions in applying the scaling method and examining the answer books and preparing the results of the RAS Examination 2012. The directions given by learned Single Judge are as follows: - - "60. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: - - (i) That the examination of RAS/RTS held for 2012 in pursuance of Advertisement dated 6/2/2012 under the Rules of 1999 are saved and are not set aside. (ii) The cryptic & not well founded decision of the RPSC dated 24/1/2014 to apply the scaling method to the present examination of RAS/RTS for 2012 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The result of the said examination of 2012 declared by the RPSC on 27/1/2014 is also quashed and set aside. (iv) The said examination of the year 2012 shall be deemed to have been taken and completed now & with the stage of raw marks available, the respondent RPSC will be free to now constitute an Expert Committee of 7 or 9 members including experts in statistics & academicians with the Chairman of RPSC & undertake the requisite and mandatory study and assessment of the need and requirement to invoke and apply the scaling and moderation techniques to the present RAS/RTS examination of 2012 also and the minutes and resolution and relevant material about subject wise determination of standard mean and standard deviation on the basis of which they arrive at such decision shall be maintained & preserved by them for scrutiny by the courts of law, in case any such occasion so arises. (v) In case the RPSC now decides not to invoke and apply the scaling method to the present examination of the year 2012, they will be free to immediately declare the result on the basis of raw marks already published by them. (vi) In case the RPSC now decides after the aforesaid prerequisite study into the requirement and need to invoke and apply these moderation method for compulsory papers & scaling method to optional subjects to this examination, then the said exercise should be undertaken and completed within the period of three months from today and, thereafter, the results may be declared & published giving both the raw marks and the moderated marks for compulsory papers and scaled marks for the optional papers in the mark sheets to be published by them for all the candidates. (vii) That in case the difference or variance of marks on account of moderation & scaling method is beyond 10% of the maximum marks in a particular paper, then such scaled or moderated marks beyond 10% of the maximum marks shall be ignored and the scaling or moderation to the extent of 10% of maximum marks for that paper can only be taken into consideration and in such case, the scaled or moderated marks with 10% cap, as explained above, shall be treated as the finally awarded marks but the ignored range of marks on account of such cap or limitation need not be published and the RPSC may only maintain a record thereof. 61. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs. Sd/ - (DR. VINEET KOTHARI), J."
(2.) THE results of the written examinations were declared and the interviews were in progress when the impugned judgment was delivered on 26th November, 2014, causing uncertainty with the examining body and the candidates, who had appeared and were declared successful in the written examinations. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1695/2014 Chandu Parihar & anr. v. State of Rajasthan & ors. alongwith connected D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1696/2014 Lalit Kumar Bishnoi & ors. v. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 11.12.2014, staying the effect and operation of the order dated 26.11.2014. It was made open to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to take the interviews, declare the results and the State Government to give appointment, subject to the final decision of the Special Appeals. The petitioners filed Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2034 -2035/2015 against the order dated 11.12.2014, in which on 19.1.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while issuing notices passed an order for listing the matter on 27th January, 2015 and till then, granted an interim stay of the operation of the order (interim order dated 11.12.2014). On 27.1.2015, the Supreme Court granted leave and passed a final order as follows: - - "Heard counsel for the parties. Applications for intervention are allowed. Leave granted. These appeals by way of special leave are directed against the interim order of the Division Bench of the High Court pending disposal of LPAs. The issue pertains to the appointment of various posts in State Subordinate Service called as RAS i.e. Rajasthan Administrative Service and allied posts. The grievances of the appellants are that by way of a detailed judgment the learned Single Judge found that the process of scaling down of marks for the compulsory subjects was impermissible in law, which is the subject matter of challenge at the instance of the State Government, pending before the Division Bench. Pending consideration, the Division Bench permitted Respondent No. 2 to hold the interviews and declare the results and also permitted Respondent No. 1 to issue orders of appointment. According to the appellants, if such a course is adopted by Respondent No. 1/State as well as Respondent No. 2/State Public Service Commission, it would seriously impinge the rights of the appellants whose marks in the process of scaling down materially got reduced and thereby their chance of participating in the interview was dwindled. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. However, Mr. P.S. Narsimhan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Respondent No. 2, brought to our notice that the posts which are sought to be filled up are about 1200 in number and that due to dearth of personnel the State Administration is seriously affected, that the process of holding the interview has already been commenced by Respondent No. 2 and that it has to interview not less than 3000 candidates, which would take considerable length of time and, therefore, the continuation of the interim order of this Court dated 19.1.2015 would cause serious dislocation in the management of the Office of Respondent No. 2 relating to the process of recruitment to the administrative service of the State. Considering the stand of the respondents, we are of the view that the rights of both the parties can be substantially taken care of by permitting Respondent No. 2 to hold the interviews but not to prepare the ranking list and finalize the selection, pending decision of the LPAs by the Division Bench of the High Court. They can always prepare the final select list and also issue orders of appointment, after the appeals pending before the Division Bench are disposed of and the order of the Division Bench goes in their favour. We, therefore, dispose of these appeals by modifying that part of the order of the Division Bench contained in paragraph 19 to the effect that the order of the learned Single Judge can remain stayed. State Government and Respondent No. 2/State Public Service Commission can hold the interviews but not to prepare the select list, pending disposal of the LPAs by the Division Bench of the High Court. Depending upon the outcome of the disposal of the LPAs, the State Public Service Commission can proceed further either by preparing the select list to enable the Respondent No. 1 to issue the orders of appointments or to proceed in accordance with any decision or direction that may be issued by the Division Bench as regards the manner in which the process of selection should be proceeded. In the light of the seriousness of the issue involved, namely, the administrative exigency in the matter of appointment to various posts of the Rajasthan Administrative Service, the appeals itself should be taken up for hearing immediately and disposed of within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We, therefore, request the Division Bench of the High Court to dispose of the appeals themselves expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order. Needless to state that all those petitioners in the writ petitions should be allowed to be impleaded as party respondents in the LPAs and to be heard before disposing of the appeals. These appeals are disposed of on the above terms. The dismissal of SLP(C) Nos. 35410 -35411/2014 shall have no impact on the orders now passed by us."
(3.) THE interviews are still in progress. We are told that it will take about four to six weeks' to complete the interviews and thus, we finally heard the matter, in compliance of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court.;