VYAS, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Meethanath @ Meethesh Nirmohi has filed this writ petition seeking relief that selection proceedings in pursuance of advertisement No. 5/90-91, conducted by respondent No. 2 Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ``the Commission'') may be declared illegal and quashed and consequent appointment orders may be set aside.
(2.) WITHOUT prejudice to the above relief, the petitioner has further prayed that appointment of Shri Radhey Shyam Koli, respondent No. 4 who had not qualified the screening test and was wrongly called for appearing before the selection committee for interview may be declared illegal and quashed. According to the facts narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition, the Commission invited applications from eligible candidates vide advertisement No. 5/90-91 with a view to selecting suitable candidates for appointment to the posts of Public Relations Officer in the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Information & Public Relations against five existing vacancies. Alongwith many others, the petitioner applied and he was allowed to appear in the screening test conducted by the Commission with Roll No. 122. In the said screening test, the petitioner was declared qualified alongwith 15 persons. However, the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not possessed of five years' experience as a journalist or sub-editor of any state-level or national level newspaper. Against aforesaid rejection of the candidature, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6675/1991 and, in that writ petition, ad interim order directing the respondent Commission to call the petitioner to face interview was passed and, in pursuance of the ad interim order, the petitioner was interviewed by the Commission. In the writ petition, while laying the foundation, the petitioner has also made averments that on the interview-board, besides Shri G. P. Pilania, Member of the Commission, Shri R. S. Gupta and Shri D. N. Upadhyay set and both Shri Gupta and Shri Upadhyay extensively interviewed the petitioner. After interview, the result of the petitioner was not declared and, at last, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was accepted vide judgment dated 2. 12. 1992 and the petitioner was held eligible for the post of Public Relations Officer. The validity of judgment dated 2. 12. 1992 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6675/1991 was assailed by the Commission before the Division Bench. The directions given by the learned Single Judge, to the extent of petitioner's eligibility for appointment to the post of Public Relations Officer under the Rajasthan Public Relations Service Rules, 1966 (referred to hereinafter as "the Rules of 1966"), was maintained. At the time of deciding the special appeal, the Division Bench passed the following order:      " In the result we uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge so far as the respondent No. 1 Mithlesh Nirmohi's eligibility to take up interview for the post of Public Relation Officer is concerned and order that if the respondent Mithilesh has secured requisite merit in the interview he be given appointment as Public Relation Officer by the Government forthwith. However, the finding of the learned Single Judge will confer no right on the daily news-paper Jaltey Deep to be treated as State level news-paper. That will be a matter which will have to be decided by the appropriate authority as per Rules. However, the State Government is directed to frame Rules prescribing norms, scales and standards for grant of a status to the news- paper to be classified either as a National level news-paper or a State level news-paper or to be treated as a local or District level news-paper. The special appeal stands disposed of accordingly on merits with no order as to costs. " In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner received communication dated 15. 3. 1993 whereby he was informed that he has not been selected for appointment to the post of Public Relations Officer. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 15. 3. 1993 on various grounds.
(3.) THE petitioner has raised the contention that he belongs to scheduled caste category and, after rejection of his candidature, one Radhey Shyam Koli who had secured less marks in the qualifying screening test was called to appear at the interview and, during the course of pendency of the writ petition, Shri Koli was interviewed as scheduled caste category candidate whereas by virtue of the ad interim order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was also interviewed; meaning thereby, the right of the petitioner to be interviewed was finally adjudicated while holding him eligible and qualified for recruitment to the post, therefore, according to the petitioner, Shri Radhey Shyam Koli was not even entitled to be considered for appointment because, after the petitioner having been declared eligible for appearing at the interview by this Court, candidature of Shri Radhey Shyam Koli was to be ignored by the Commission inasmuch as Shri Koli had secured less marks in the screening test than the petitioner and Shri Koli had been called to appear at the interview as the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the Commission. THE petitioner having been declared eligible, thereafter, Shri Radhey Shyam Koli had no right to be interviewed because as per the reply of the respondents, when the petitioner was held ineligible then Shri Radhey Shyam Koli was included in the list of candidates for interview in the category of Scheduled Caste. THErefore, according to the petitioner, the respondents were under obligation to provide appointment to the petitioner and candidature of Shri Radhey Shyam Koli, who had been substituted while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, was to be ignored. But, the respondent Commission selected Shri Radhey Shyam Koli illegally. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the constitution of the selection committee itself was illegal because three persons were included in the selection committee by the Commission for adjudging the suitability of the candidates in the interview and according to Rule 20 of the Rules of 1966 the Commission is under obligation to prepare list of candidates whom it considered suitable for appointment to the posts concerned in the order of merit and forward the same to the Government; meaning thereby, the suitability is to be adjudged by the Commission. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, both Shri R. S. Gupta and Shri D. N. Upadhyay were not entitled to be members of the selection committee for adjudging the suitability of the candidates for appointment to the posts of Public Relations Officer because they are stranger to the very nature of the posts and they can hardly be regarded experts in the field of Public Relations, therefore, the Committee was not at all consisting of any expert on the subject of public relations because the post of Director is provided as a senior post under the Rules of 1966 and it can be filled in 100% by transfer or appointment of IAS/ras officers, therefore, the person who was appointed by way of promotion can be termed as an expert of the subject as he possesses qualification and experience; but, an incumbent transferred from IAS cannot be treated to be an expert or cannot be said to be competent to sit as an expert on the selection board. Shri R. S. Gupta was admittedly not a promotee but he was posted by way of transfer from the IAS and, on that post, he had only experience of a few days in the Department of Information & Public Relations. Therefore, it can be said that there was no expert sitting in the selection board to adjudge the suitability of candidates for appointment as Public Relations Officer. Similarly, it is submitted that Shri D. N. Upadhyay remained Director of the Directorate of Information & Public Relations merely for one year and, that too, way back in the year 1980 and Shri R. S. Gupta assumed the charge on the post of Director on 5. 8. 1992 and he was holding the post for last one month only when he set in the interview board, therefore, neither Shri R. S. Gupta nor Shri D. N. Upadhyay can be termed expert on the subject of Information & Public Relations and, in fact, they were included on the board of interview by the Commission merely on account of their high-pedestalled bureaucratic status and these persons cannot adjudge the suitability of the candidates for the posts of Public Relations Officer as experts, therefore, any selection made with the assistance of such persons who were not experts and merely set as experts cannot be considered legal. In these circumstances, the constitution of the selection committee was totally illegal. In fact, fields of journalism and public relations are espacialities in themselves as is evidence from the qualification prescribed for the post of Public Relations Officer. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that even the petitioner was not considered eligible by the Commission on account of the ground that he did not possess five years experience in journalism or as sub-editor of a State-level or National-level newspaper, then, for the selection committee in which experts are to be included, Shri R. S. Gupta and Shri D. N. Upadhyay cannot be said to be experts of the field. On these premises, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the whole selection proceedings taken in pursuance of advertisement No. 5/90-91 deserves to be quashed. ;