DEEPIKA CHUNDAWAT Vs. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER
LAWS(RAJ)-2016-1-242
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 12,2016

Deepika Chundawat Appellant
VERSUS
Rajasthan Public Service Commission And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed challenging validity of Rr.24 and 25 of the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962. The process of selection was initiated by the R.P.S.C. for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, a post which is included in the Schedule appended to the Rules 1962, vide advertisement dated 20.9.2011. It will be appropriate to quote Rr.24 and 25 of the scheme of Rules 1962 by which the petitioner is said to be aggrieved:- "24. Personality and viva-voce Examination.- After the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test have been received, the Commission shall call for interview such of them as have obtained a minimum of 35% marks in each of the compulsory subjects and a minimum of 40% marks in the aggregate for the written test. The Commission may in its discretion award grace marks up to 1 in each of the compulsory papers and up to 3 in the aggregate. Such of the candidates who have obtained qualifying marks shall be called by the Commission for interview. There shall be "60" marks for interview. The Commission shall award marks to each candidate interviewed by them. In interviewing the candidates, besides awarding marks in respect of general bearing, physique, personality, address and interest in an outdoor life, marks shall also be awarded for the candidate's proficiency in any one of the Rajasthani dialects and his knowledge of social customs of Rajasthan. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test by each such candidate. 25. Recommendations of the Commission.-(1) The Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates recommended by them for direct recruitment to the Service in order of their proficiency as disclosed by their aggregate marks. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the Commission shall arrange them in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the Service: Provided that the Commission shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in the personality and viva-voce examination and a minimum of 50 marks in the aggregate. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso the Commission may in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes recommend the names of such candidates up to the number of vacancies reserved for them from amongst those who have qualified for interview even if they fail to obtain the minimum marks in the personality and viva-voce examination or in the aggregate prescribed under the aforesaid proviso; Provided that the Commission may to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The names of such candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in the order of merit to the Government within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government."
(2.) Under the scheme of Rules as envisaged in R.24, only such of the candidates will be qualified to be called for interview who have obtained minimum 35% marks in each of the compulsory subjects and a minimum of 40% marks in aggregate in the written test, and such who have qualified for interview and finally those who are called for interview, will be considered for recommendation by the Commission obviously after being found finally suitable under R.25 of the scheme of Rules, with a restriction that the Commission shall recommend such candidates who have failed to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in the personality viva-voce examination and a minimum of 50% in aggregate.
(3.) The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that there is an apparent contradiction as the minimum requirement of marks in compulsory subjects with aggregate in R.24 and the requirement of aggregate marks in R.25 of the scheme of Rules.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.