- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dharamveer Kumawat Petitioner v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. S
Structured Summary of the Court Order
Factual and Procedural Background
This order was finally decided at the admission stage at the request of the parties.
The respondent Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement dated 5/6/2012 for appointment to the post of Evaluation Officer, listing seven vacancies broken down as: General - 4, General (Female) - 1, SC - 1, ST - Nil, OBC - 1. The petitioner applied as an OBC candidate. A screening test was held; the petitioner qualified and was called to interview on 18/6/2014. Results and a category-wise merit list were published on 19/6/2014. The Commission also prepared a reserved list in which the petitioner appeared at S. No. 4 overall but at No. 1 in the OBC category.
The petitioner alleged that the merit list did not conform with the reservation policy because respondent No. 4 (Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq) was shown against the OBC vacancy though he stood at No. 2 in the combined merit list; the petitioner contended that if respondent No. 4 were placed against a general vacancy, the petitioner (an OBC candidate) would be entitled to appointment against the sole OBC vacancy. The petitioner sought directions to appoint him in the OBC category and to treat respondent No. 4 as selected in the unreserved/general category.
The Commission and other respondents opposed the petition, stating that respondent No. 4 had obtained marks below the general-category cut-off in the screening test, was permitted to appear in the interview by being treated as OBC (special concession/relaxation), and therefore could not be allotted to the general category despite higher interview marks. The Court dismissed the petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a candidate who availed special relaxation/concession (concession in the screening test) as a reserved-category candidate can be migrated and treated as selected against a general/unreserved vacancy if, after the interview, he figures in the general/open category merit list.
- Whether the benefit (concession) granted at the screening-test stage, where the screening test was provided for in the advertisement, should be treated as a special relaxation affecting final merit allocation.
- Whether the RPSC's category-wise placement of candidates (showing respondent No. 4 against the OBC vacancy) was contrary to reservation policy and entitles the petitioner to appointment in the OBC category.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Shobhit Tiwari)
- The benefit of relaxation availed by a reserved-category candidate at the screening-test stage (which, petitioner contended, was not part of the merit-determining selection process under the Rajasthan Evaluation Service Rules, 1979) should not be considered when preparing the final merit list.
- The screening test was not part of recruitment under the 1979 Rules; only the interview considered merits; therefore, the concession at the screening-test stage was not a "special concession" that would prevent migration to a general vacancy after the interview.
- Relied upon: Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 119 and Dharamveer Tholia v. State of Raj. (2000 Raj. Candid 778.
Respondent Commission's Arguments (Mr. Nitin Jain)
- The screening test was conducted as per the advertisement; cut-off marks were 7.22 for General and 6.53 for OBC. Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq obtained 6.53, i.e., below the general cut-off, and was given concession as an OBC candidate to permit him to appear in the interview.
- Because respondent No. 4 had availed concession/relaxation in the screening test, he could not be treated as a candidate for the general quota even after obtaining higher marks at the interview. He must occupy the reserved OBC seat.
- Supported this position by reference to State Government circulars dated 12/9/2012 and 26/10/2012 and relied on the decision Rajesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (2) WLC (Raj.) 616.
Respondent No. 3's Arguments (adopted by Mr. H.V. Nandwana)
- Similarly argued that respondent No. 4, having enjoyed special relaxation/concession to participate in the interview as a reserved-category candidate, could not migrate to the unreserved/general category.
- Relied upon Apex Court decisions Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, AIR 1991 SC 1607 and Rashmi Mishra v. (Madha) Pradesh Public Service Commission, 2006 (11) Scale 5, to submit that candidates who participated pursuant to the prescribed procedure could not subsequently challenge that procedure.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rajesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (2) WLC (Raj.) 616 | Principle: Candidates availing special relaxation/concession in the selection process are not eligible to be migrated against open/general vacancies; such candidates shall occupy reserved seats in their respective category. | The Court relied on and reproduced the ratio of this Division Bench decision and applied it to hold that respondent No. 4, having availed concession in the screening test, could not be migrated to a general vacancy; RPSC was correct in showing him against the OBC vacancy. |
| Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 119 | The petitioner cited this Apex Court decision in support of the contention concerning treatment of relaxation in selection. | The petitioner relied on this authority, but the Court rejected the petitioner's contention in view of the Rajesh Singh ratio; the order does not record adoption of Jitendra Kumar Singh's principle to overturn RPSC's action. |
| Dharamveer Tholia v. State of Raj. (2000 Raj. Candid 778) | Authority cited by the petitioner for his position regarding the effect of screening test relaxation on final merit. | Relied upon by petitioner; the Court did not adopt this as a basis to disturb RPSC's placement and instead applied Rajesh Singh (supra). |
| Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, AIR 1991 SC 1607 | Cited by respondents to support the proposition that candidates who participate under the prescribed selection procedure cannot later challenge the procedure. | Relied upon by respondent counsel; the Court's primary analytical reliance remained on Rajesh Singh (supra). The order records that this precedent was cited by respondents in support of their submissions. |
| Rashmi Mishra v. (Madha) Pradesh Public Service Commission, 2006 (11) Scale 5 | Cited by respondents to support the argument that candidates participating according to the laid-down procedure cannot question that procedure. | Referenced by respondents' counsel in support of their submissions; the Court's decision turned on the Rajesh Singh ratio and the advert/circulars, rather than creating new law based on this precedent. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded step-by-step as follows, based exclusively on matters recorded in the order:
- The Court examined the advertisement dated 5/6/2012 and noted that a screening test was part of the selection process as per the advertisement (para reproduced in the record; Para No. 5 of the advertisement was quoted).
- The Court recorded the cut-off marks fixed in the screening test: 7.22 for General category and 6.53 for OBC category. It found that respondent No. 4 (Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq) scored 6.53 and was therefore permitted to appear in the interview by being treated as an OBC candidate (i.e., given concession/relaxation in the screening test).
- Although respondent No. 4 obtained higher marks at the interview and stood at S. No. 2 in the combined merit list, he was shown as an OBC candidate in the published category-wise merit list.
- The petitioner argued that the screening test was not part of the recruitment process under the Rajasthan Evaluation Service Rules, 1979 and so the relaxation at the screening-test stage could not be treated as a "special concession" preventing migration to general vacancies — petitioner said only the interview determined merit.
- The Court rejected this contention, applying the Division Bench precedent Rajesh Singh (supra). The Court reproduced the pertinent ratio from Rajesh Singh, which states that candidates who availed special relaxation/concession while participating in a competitive test/process of selection are not eligible to migrate against open/general vacancies and shall occupy the reserved seat in their respective category.
- The Court held that, given the advertisement's conditions and the State Government circulars produced by the Commission (Annexures R2/1 and R2/2), the screening test constituted part of the selection process. Therefore, the concession granted to respondent No. 4 at the screening-test stage was a special relaxation/concession — not merely an administrative relaxation in age or fees — and could not be disregarded for final merit allocation.
- On that basis, the RPSC's decision to show respondent No. 4 against the OBC vacancy was held to be correct, and the petition was found to be without merit.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is DISMISSED.
Implications:
- Direct effect: The RPSC's category-wise merit list stands. Respondent No. 4 (Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq) is correctly shown against the OBC vacancy according to the Court's application of the Rajesh Singh ratio; the petitioner is not entitled to be declared selected for the OBC vacancy as he had prayed.
- The petitioner's stay application and any other pending applications related to the petition were also dismissed by the order.
- Broader precedent: The Court applied existing Division Bench authority (Rajesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan) and relevant circulars; the order does not purport to lay down any new legal principle beyond applying established precedent and therefore does not announce a new precedent in this opinion.
ORDER
BY THE COURT:
1. At the request of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is finally decided at the admission stage.
2. The petitioner, in the instant case, has sought the direction against the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner in OBC Category for the post of Evaluation Officer in terms of the advertisement dated 5/6/2012, and to consider the respondent No. 4 Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq in unreserved category instead of OBC category vacancy and consequently declare the petitioner as selected in OBC category.
3. The short facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that the respondent-Commission had issued the advertisement dated 5/6/2012 for the appointment on the post of Evaluation Officer. The said advertisement was for 7 vacancies, which were bifurcated as (A). General - 4 vacancies, (B). General (Female) -1 vacancy, (C). SC-1 vacancy, (D). ST-Nil and (E). OBC - 1 vacancy. It appears that the petitioner had applied for the said post as an OBC candidate. The respondent RPSC having held the screening test, the petitioner was found eligible, and accordingly was called in the interview to be held by the Interview Board on 18/6/2014. The RPSC thereafter declared the result on 19/6/2014, and published the merit list on the website giving category-wise details of the selected candidates on 19/6/2014. It appears that the Commission also prepared the reserved list for the purposes of appointment on the said post, and the name of the petitioner was shown at S. No. 4 in the reserved list, however he was No. 1 in OBC category. According to the petitioner, the merit list prepared by the respondent Commission was not in consonance with the reservation policy, inasmuch as the respondent No. 4 Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq was shown against the vacancy of OBC category, though as per the merit list, the respondent No. 4 stood at merit position No. 2 in the combined merit list. As per the case of the petitioner, on account of non-consideration of Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq against the vacancy of general category, and his consideration against the vacancy of OBC category, the petitioner, who belongs to OBC category, has been placed in reserved list at position No. 1 in OBC category. According to him, if the respondent No. 4 is considered against the vacancy of General category, the petitioner would get the appointment against the one vacancy of OBC category. The petitioner therefore has challenged the said action of the respondent Commission praying for the reliefs stated hereinabove.
4. The respondent Commission has resisted the petition by filing the reply contending inter-alia that the respondent No. 4 Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq had secured less marks than the cut off marks fixed for the general category in the screening test, and therefore he was given concession considering him as OBC, and hence even after securing the higher marks in the result of interview (general merit), he was selected under OBC category. According to the respondent Commission, the respondent No. 4 having claimed concession/relaxation under the reserved quota in the screening test, he could not have been considered as the candidate against general quota. It has the also been contended that in view of the Circulars dated 12/9/2012, and 26/10/2012, the candidate, who could not obtain the cut off marks of general category, and who had availed the concession or relaxation of reserved category, he could not be shown as a candidate for general category in the merit list after the interview. Accordingly, as per the contention of the respondent Commission, the respondent No. 4 has been rightly shown against the OBC category in the merit list. The respondent No. 3 has also filed the reply contending inter-alia that the respondent No. 4 Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq having enjoyed the special relaxation and concession in the screening test, for allowing him to participate in the interview because he belonged to the reserved category, he could not be permitted to migrate in the unreserved or general category.
5. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Shobhit Tiwari for the petitioner that the benefit of relaxation availed by the reserved category candidate in the process of selection, which was not part of merit determination, should not be taken into consideration while preparing the final merit list. He also submitted that provisions of the Rajasthan Evaluation Service Rules, 1979 provide for the method of recruitment and the screening test being not provided as part of recruitment process, the benefit granted to the respondent No. 4 Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq at the stage of screening test could not be treated as special concession, and therefore the respondent No. 4 should have been considered against the vacancy of general category and not of OBC category, when he was at No. 2 in the merit list after interview. In this regard, Mr. Tiwari has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 119 and the decision of this Court in case of Dharamveer Tholia v. State of Raj., (2000 Raj. Candid 778).
6. However, the learned counsel Mr. Nitin Jain for the respondent Commission has submitted that the Commission having conducted the screening test as per the advertisement - Annexure-1, the cut off marks for General category candidate was at 7.22, whereas for OBC category was 6.53 According to him, Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq having obtained 6.53 marks in the screening test, he was given concession of his being a candidate of reserved category, as he had not secured the cut off marks fixed for general category, and therefore he could not be permitted to be migrated to the vacancy of General category even if he had secured more marks in the interview. He has also relied upon the circulars issued by the State Government to substantiate his submissions. Mr. Jain has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Rajesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (2) WLC (Raj.) 616 to submit that the candidate availing special relaxation/concession while participating in competitive test/process of selection, he would not be eligible to be migrated against the open/general category vacancy, even if he finds place in the select/merit list of general/open category, and shall occupy the reserved seat in his respective category only. The learned counsel Mr. H.V Nandwana for the respondent No. 3 while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Mr. Jain for RPSC, has further relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, AIR 1991 SC 1607 and in case of Rashmi Mishra v. Madha Pradesh Public Service Commission, 2006 (11) Scale 5 to submit that those candidates, who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein, were not entitled to question the same.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the documents on record, it transpires that the petitioner had applied for the post of Evaluation Officer pursuant to the advertisement dated 5/6/2012 at Annexure-1. Para No. 5 of the said advertisement being relevant is reproduced as under:-
8. It appears that in view of the above condition, the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had appeared in the screening test held by the respondent Commission. The cut off marks fixed for the General category was 7.22 in the screening test, whereas that for OBC candidate was 6.53 According to the commission, the respondent No. 4 Mr. Mohammad Rafeeq having obtained only 6.53 marks in the screening test, he was given the special concession treating him as the candidate of reserved category i.e OBC and was permitted to appear in the interview. It is true that in the interview the said respondent No. 4 obtained more marks and was also found at S. No. 2 in the merit list, however he was shown as the candidate of reserved category. The bone of contention raised by the learned counsel Mr. Tiwari for the petitioner is that the concession given by the RPSC in the screening test was only an extension of the benefit normally given to the reserved category candidate over and above the relaxation in age and fees etc. and that screening test being not part of the selection process as per the Rules of 1979, the relaxation given to the respondent No. 4 should not be treated as special concession. According to him, since the said Rules have prescribed for the interview only for considering the merits of the candidates the level playing field was interview only, and the screening test should not be considered as the factor for merit determination. The said contention of Mr. Tiwari cannot be accepted in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in case of Rajesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (supra). The relevant ratio laid down in the said decision is reproduced as under:-
61. Upshot of over-all discussions made (supra), all the special appeals (Schedule A) are disposed of and we modify the impugned judgment dt.27.04.2012 and 08.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of relaxation in age having been availed by candidates of reserved category and find place in the select list on dint of merit of general/open category vacancies, deserves to be migrated against general/open category vacancies; but at the same time, candidates availing special relaxation/concessions while participating in competitive test/process of selection, if find place in select/merit list of general/open category vacancies, they are not eligible to be migrated against open/general category vacancies and shall occupy the reserved seat in their respective category; as a result whereof, para(a) of the Circular issued by State Government dt.11.05.2011 being not in confirmity with the mandate of law can not be made applicable for public employment & accordingly deserves to be quashed & set aside.
9. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforestated judgment after considering various decisions of the Apex Court has categorically held that the candidate availing special relaxation/concession while participating in a competitive test/process of selection, would not be eligible to be migrated against open/general category vacancies, even if he finds place in the select/merit list of general/open category candidates, and that he shall occupy the reserved seat in his respective category only. In the opinion of the Court, the screening test being part of process of selection, as per the condition mentioned in the advertisement-Annexure-1, the benefit given to the respondent No. 4 at the stage of screening test could not be treated as mere relaxation in age or fees. It was a special relaxation/concession given to the respondent No. 4 for being eligible to appear in the interview. The screening test was held to determine the competitive merits of the candidates. The contention of the learned counsel Mr. Tiwari for the petitioner that the Rules of 1979 did not contemplate the screening test, and therefore it could not be treated as competitive test/process of selection, cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal position as well as in view of the circulars issued by the State Government, produced by the respondent RPSC at Annexure-R2/1 and R2/2. Hence, it is required to be held that the RPSC has rightly considered the respondent No. 4 against the vacancy of OBC category and not against the open or general category.
10. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. By this order, the stay application and other application, if any also stand dismissed.
Alert