Ramavatar Pareek And Others v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission And Others

Order

1. What is challenged in the instant petition is the legality of the judgment dated 3-1-2011 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Ramavatar Pareek v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Civil Writ Petition No. 16920 of 2010 by which the two main prayers made by the petitioners, namely (1) the entire selection made pursuant to the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2008 be ordered to be reviewed by summoning the original record or a Committee be appointed to review the Rajasthan Judicial Service Selection process and consequently the Rajasthan Public Service Commission be directed to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2008 adhering to the moderation formula as suggested by this Court in Sanjay Singh v. U.P Public Service Commission (2007) 3 SCC 720, and (2) the appointments of the petitioners made to Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2008 on the basis of first final merit list be protected in the light of the decision dated 5-5-2010 of this Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Balveer Singh Jat Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2010 and Sanjay Singh case (2007) 3 SCC 720.

2. An advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission whereby applications were invited from the law graduates for the recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Service. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners and other eligible candidates had applied for the post advertised. The written examination for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2008 was conducted on 7-2-2009 and 8-2-2009 in accordance with the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955. The petitioners along with the other candidates appeared in the written examination and passed the same. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission had adopted a method of scaling for the purpose of assessment of answer sheets. Because of this, some of the candidates who had obtained less raw but whose marks were scaled up were called for interview and subsequently selected and appointed.

3. Feeling aggrieved, a series of writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Rajasthan the main petition being DB Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010. The said petition was heard by the Division Bench of the High Court along with other petitions. The Division Bench noticed Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had adopted similar method of scaling for the purpose of assessment of the answer sheets of the candidates who had appeared in Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2005 and because of this, some of the candidates who had obtained less raw but whose marks were scaled up were called for interview and subsequently selected and appointed. It was further noticed that those candidates who had obtained more raw marks than the selected candidates but were not selected had filed series of writ petitions and the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court vide judgment dated 27-10-2009 rendered in Sarita Noushad v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Civil Writ Petition No. 3942 of 2007 and other cognate writ petitions had, after referring to the decision of this Court in Sanjay Singh case (2007) 3 SCC 720, declared the formula of scaling adopted by RPSC as unjust, unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary and granted appropriate reliefs to the petitioners of those writ petition.

4. The Division Bench had also noticed that by an interim order dated 18-2-2010 passed in Sharwan Kumar v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and other cognate matters, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission was directed not to declare the result of the interviews which were going on for recruitment pursuant to the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2008 on the basis of the result of the written examination declared after applying the scaling system. It was further noticed that interim order dated 18-2-2010 Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 was challenged by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission by filing Special Leave to Appeal Petition No. (C) 6569 of 2010 before this Court and this Court, by an order dated 25-2-2010 SLP (C) No. 6569 of 2010, (2014) 13 SCC 385 (F7) had stayed the operation of the interim order dated 18-2-2010 Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and the Commission, without waiting for adjudication of the SLP had declared the final result and made recommendations to the State Government for appointment of successful candidates in haste.

5. What is important to notice is that the Division Bench deciding DB Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and other cognate petitions had subsequently learnt that Rajasthan Public Service Commission had withdrawn SLP No. (C) 6569 of 2010 and the Supreme Court had dismissed Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2010 the said SLP as withdrawn. After considering the relevant facts the Division Bench had expressed the view that on withdrawal of the SLP, the interim order dated 18-2-2010 Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 had revived and therefore the declaration of result of the oral interviews and the recommendation made by RPSC to appoint successful candidates, contrary to the interim order dated 18-2-2010 Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010, were ab initio illegal and void.

6. The Division Bench, after hearing the parties gave following directions in the operative portion of the judgment dated 10-5-2010 Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010:

“With regard to other writ petitions, in which, selections of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2008 are under challenge, while following the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh case (2007) 3 SCC 720 as well as order dated 5-5-2010 Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2010 and verdict given by the Division Bench of this Court in Sarita Noushad case Civil Writ Petition No. 3942 of 2007, all these writ petitions are allowed. The scaling system adopted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2008 is hereby declared illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently, the result declared on the basis of adopting the scaling system during pendency of these writ petitions for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2008 and recommendations made in pursuance of result so declared to the State Government for appointment are hereby declared null and void and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to prepare fresh merit/select list while taking into consideration the raw marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and, while proceeding on the basis of raw marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination, further, add marks obtained in the interview. After preparation of fresh merit/select list, final result may be declared and names of so selected candidates may be recommended to the State Government for appointment. This exercise shall be completed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.”

7. The record of the instant petition shows that feeling aggrieved, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had approached this Court by filing SLP (C) No. 16869 of 2010. The said special leave petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9-7-2010 SLP (C) No. 16869 of 2010, (2014) 13 SCC 385 (F8), in the following terms:

“Permission to file SLP is granted in CC No. 9494 of 2010. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and in detail in both the petitions but do not find any substance in the petitions. This Court completely agrees with the directions given by the High Court in the impugned judgment Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010. However, Mr P.P Rao, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in SLP No. 16869 of 2010 prays that time to implement the directions given by the High Court in the impugned judgment Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 be extended reasonably having regard to the facts of the case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, further time of one month is granted from today to enable the petitioner i.e Rajasthan Public Service Commission to comply with the direction given by the High Court. Subject to the extension of time as mentioned above, the petitions fail and are dismissed.”

8. The effect of the directions given by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Sharwan Kumar v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and other cognate writ petitions vide judgment dated 10-5-2010 which were fully endorsed by this Court when SLP (C) No. 16869 of 2010 filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, was dismissed by a speaking order dated 9-7-2010 SLP (C) No. 16869 of 2010, (2014) 13 SCC 385 (F8), is that the two acts of the Commission, namely, declaration of final result after holding of oral interviews and recommendation made to the State Government to appoint the selected candidates were ab initio illegal and void. For the purpose of deciding the present SLP, what is relevant to observe is that the names of the present petitioners were also included in the list of selected candidates prepared after declaration of result of oral interviews. The recommendations made by the Commission to the State Government to appoint the selected candidates also included the names of the present petitioners.

9. Thereafter the petitioners filed writ petition being DB Civil Writ Petition No. 16920 of 2010 and claimed the reliefs which have been referred to earlier. The High Court by the impugned judgment Civil Writ Petition No. 16920 of 2010 has dismissed the same giving rise to the instant petition.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and considered the documents forming part of the SLP.

11. The contention that the selection of the petitioners who were waiting for their appointment orders should be protected in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court in Sanjay Singh (2007) 3 SCC 720 and in Sarita Noushad Civil Writ Petition No. 3942 of 2007, has no substance worth the name. In Sanjay Singh case (2007) 3 SCC 720, the appointments already made were ordered to be protected and the appointments made in the said case were never declared to be ab initio void and illegal. Same was the position in Sarita Noushad Civil Writ Petition No. 3942 of 2007. Here in this case, none of the petitioners was appointed to the post of Civil Judge (JD) and therefore no question arises to protect the appointment of any of the petitioners. Further, as observed earlier the declaration of final result of the petitioners and other candidates after holding the oral interviews and the recommendation made by the Commission to the State Government to appoint the petitioners and others have been declared void ab initio and illegal. Therefore, the course adopted in Sanjay Singh case (2007) 3 SCC 720 and in Sarita Noushad Civil Writ Petition No. 3942 of 2007 cannot be directed to be adopted in case of the petitioners. For this very reason, the alternative prayer to direct the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to re-evaluate the answer scripts of RJS Examination as per moderation formula cannot be granted. The High Court, in the impugned judgment Civil Writ Petition No. 16920 of 2010 has rightly held that there is no scope for directing the Public Service Commission to re-evaluate the answer sheets as per moderation formula at this stage in the facts of the instant case.

12. The plea that the declaration of the final result after holding of the oral interviews and the recommendations made by the Commission to the State Government to appoint the selected candidates were held to be null and void ab initio without hearing the petitioners and, therefore, the said conclusion is not binding upon the petitioners is devoid of merits. The DB Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 filed by Sharvan Kumar against RPSC and others as well as other writ petitions were pending in the High Court at least for more than four months. Against the interim order Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and final order Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 passed therein, this Court was approached. The petitioners who were selected were never appointed and were waiting for their appointment orders. Under the circumstances it would be reasonable to presume that they were knowing about the pendency of DB Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and other cognate matters in the High Court. Nothing prevented them from taking steps to get themselves impleaded in those writ petitions. But admittedly no such step was ever taken by any of the petitioners.

13. The argument of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and fairness in action of Court which decided DB Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and other petitions cannot be readily accepted in the matters like the present one where the very sanctity of the examination system based on scaling of marks was at stake. Here in this case, the Division Bench hearing DB Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and other cognate matters held that the declaration of final result after holding of oral interviews and the recommendations made by the RPSC to the State Government to appoint the selected candidates were void ab initio because RPSC had committed breach of interim order dated 18-2-2010 Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and adoption of scaling method was held to be illegal in Sanjay Singh case (2007) 3 SCC 720.

14. This is not a case of any particular examinee who was charged with adoption of unfair means. If it is not a question of charging anyone individually with unfair means but to condemn the examination for adoption of scaling of marks, it is not necessary for the Court to give an opportunity to all the examinees if examination as a whole is declared to be illegal. It is not the case of any of the petitioners that the High Court, while deciding DB Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and other cognate matters had charged any of them of adopting unfair means. The scaling of marks was adopted by RPSC which was heard in the said matter. Therefore, the plea that the petitioners should have been heard before declaring result and recommendation made by RPSC as void ab initio has no substance.

15. It is not disputed by the petitioners that the declaration of result after oral interviews and recommendation by RPSC to the State Government was quite contrary to the interim order dated 18-2-2010 passed in Sharwan Kumar v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and other cognate petitions. It is also not disputed that scaling of marks was declared to be illegal by the Rajasthan High Court vide judgment dated 27-10-2009 rendered in Sarita Noushad v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Civil Writ Petition No. 3942 of 2007 filed by Sarita Noushad against RPSC and others and other cognate petitions. Even if the petitioners had been issued notice and heard, they could have hardly pleaded that the declaration of final result and recommendation to the State Government were not contrary to the interim order dated 18-2-2010 passed in Sharwan Kumar v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Civil Writ Petition No. 825 of 2010 and other matters or that the scaling method adopted by RPSC was not declared to be illegal by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Sarita Noushad v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Civil Writ Petition No. 3942 of 2007 and other cognate matters.

16. It is well settled that if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice would not apply. If no other conclusion is possible on admitted facts it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in violation of natural justice. Thus, the argument that the conclusion namely declaration of final result and recommendation by RPSC were void ab initio was not binding upon the petitioners has no substance.

17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners.

18. This Court does not find any ground for interfering with the impugned judgment Civil Writ Petition No. 16920 of 2010 in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, the special leave petition fails and is dismissed.