Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Dr. Rachita Mathur Wife Of Dr. Rishabh … vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15018/2024
Dr. Rachita Mathur Wife Of Dr. Rishabh Bhargawa, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of C-37, Peeyush Path, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Medical Education Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Madarpura, Jaipur Road,
Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RK Mathur, Sr.Adv. With
Mr. Aditya Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi for
Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG
Mr. Yuvraj Samant with
Ms. Neha Amola
Mr. Tilak Vaid
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Reserved on : 20/12/2024
Pronounced on : 10/01/2025
REPORTABLE:
1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:
“(i) declaring the impugned condition referred in the
advertisement dated 27.11.2021 under clause
“Selection Procedure” under the head of “Other
Details” as illegal and unconstitutional and the
same may kindly be struck down as
constitutionally invalid;
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(2 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
(ii) directing the respondents to adhere to the
notification dated 23.05.2022 issued by the
Department of Personnel, Government of
Rajasthan pursuant to the selection process on
the post of Assistant Professor in furtherance of
advertisement dated 27.11.2021 and the
selection process for the of Assistant Professor
(Skin & VD) in pursuance to advertisement dated
27.11.2021 be finalized based on the selection
criteria provided for in the notification dated
23.05.2022 and if the petitioner is found eligible
and meritorious she may be given appointment
on the post of Assistant Professor (Skin & VD)
with all consequential benefits;”
FACTUAL NARRATIVE
2. The respondents issued an advertisement dated
27.11.2021 inviting applications for the post of Assistant
Professors in the faculty of Skin and V.D.; governed by the
Department of Medical Education under the Rajasthan Medical
Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (herein after referred to as
“the Rules of 1962”). The written examination qua the said
advertisement was scheduled on 06.05.2022 wherein the
petitioner (upon having requisite qualifications) appeared and the
answer key qua the same was issued on 10.06.2022.
3. Vide an erstwhile batch of writ petitions (SB Civil Writ
Petition No.1777/2022 titled as Hariom Meena & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr.; SB Civil Writ Petition No.4027/2022 titled as Dr.
Rajveer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. & SB Civil Writ
Petition No.5035/2022 titled as Dr. Rajmal Meena Vs. State of
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(3 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
Rajasthan & Ors.) the improper computation of the back-log
vacancies for SC/ST category candidates in pursuance with the
advertisement dated 27.11.2021, for the post of Assistant
Professors was assailed (Annexure-1). In the said batch of
petitions the Court vide order dated 04.05.2022 directed the
respondent-Rajasthan Public Selection Commission (hereinafter
referred to as “RPSC”) to not declare the result qua the said
recruitment examination. Resultantly, no substantial progress was
made by the respondents in furtherance to the advertisement
dated 27.11.2021. Nevertheless, the said petitions were decided
considering the mutual consensus drawn amongst the parties.
4. Upon acknowledging the said interim protection dated
04.05.2022, the petitioner herein moved an application for
impleading her in array of the respondent parties. Vide order dated
20.05.2024 (Annexure-3) the said application of the petitioner was
allowed and she was impleaded as a respondent-party. However,
the said petition was decided vide order dated 24.05.2024
(Annexure-4).
5. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner moved an
application to apprise the Court with the terms and conditions of
notification dated 23.05.2022, issued by the Department of
Personnel, Government of Rajasthan; whereby it was notified that
in order to ensure the selection of meritorious candidates and to
make the selection process fair and transparent, the interview
marks were fixed to maximum of 10% of the total marks
(Annexure-2). Thereby, the petitioner had sought directions
against the respondent-RPSC to confine the interview marks only
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(4 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
upto 10% of the total number of marks. The said application of the
petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 30.05.2024 with
directions that the order dated 24.05.2024 shall be read
harmoniously with the notification dated 23.05.2022, No.
F.1(2)DOP/A-II/97 Pt., qua the instant selection process
(Annexure-6).
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL
REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER
6. At the outset, learned senior counsel along with
assisting counsel have averred that the instant petition is neither
barred by the doctrine of delay and laches as ever-since 2022 and
interim protection was operative qua the instant impugned
examination, nor the petitioner is hit by the doctrine of estoppel
and acquiescence. Moreover, the action of the respondent-RPSC of
not complying with the directions as spelled out in the notification
dated 23.05.2022 are violative of the petitioner’s fundamental
rights as enshrined under the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21
and the Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had
further averred that the criteria for selection upon the said posts
was by interview with a caveat that if in case the number of
applications received will be more than the total number of
vacancies available, the Commission may take screening
examination. The said selection criteria was based upon Rule 19 of
the Rules of 1962, which was amended vide notification dated
23.05.2022, wherein it was explicitly noted that if a written
examination was also scheduled prior to the interview round, the
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(5 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
weightage of marks qua the interview shall not exceed 10% of the
total number of marks.
8. It was further contended that subsequent to the order
dated 30.05.2024 the respondent-State and RPSC moved separate
applications (Annexure-7 and 8) for recalling of the order dated
30.05.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed reply to the
recalling applications categorically noting the fact that the
notification dated 23.05.2022 has to be made applicable in
furtherance on the impugned selection process. Learned senior
counsel had further drawn the attention of the Court upon the
timeline of the impugned examination and stated that the written
examination was scheduled and conducted on 06.05.2022 and its
answer key was issued on 10.05.2022; subsequently, prior to the
interview process, the notification dated 23.05.2022 was issued, in
the common parlance by the Department of Personnel,
Government of Rajasthan on the basis of the Cabinet decision
dated 10.05.2022 and the State Cabinet in an unambiguous
manner after considering all the relevant factors and the Rules of
1962 had taken a decision that the interview marks for the
selection process ought not to be more than 10% of the total
number of examination.
9. Learned senior counsel had further contended that from
a bare perusal of the timeline of events and the judicial and
administrative intervention, it can be deduced that with all cannon
of law, the notification dated 23.05.2022, keeping the maximum
number of marks in all probabilities as 10% shall be applicable qua
the instant impugned examination/selection process also.
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(6 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
10. Nonetheless, during the course of arguments counsel
representing the respondents had mentioned that qua the said
examination 40% marks shall be awarded on the basis of the
written examination, 20% marks on the basis of academics and
the remaining 40% marks shall be on the basis of the interview;
however, in the advertisement dated 27.11.2021, no such
conditions/bifurcation of marks was spelled out. Moreover, the said
bifurcation of marks was stipulated in a whilom advertisement
dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure-11) which had zilch relevance in the
facts and circumstances of the present impugned advertisement.
11. It was further averred that the contents of the affidavits
(Annexure-12 and 13) filed by the Chairman of RPSC and ACS
Medical are self-contradictory as in paragraph no. 3 of the said
affidavit the it was stated that no examination was conducted by
the respondent-RPSC prior to the notification dated 23.05.2022
where the same was made applicable whereas, in the latter
paragraphs it was noted that two recruitment notifications
pertaining to the posts of Occupational Therapist, 2022 and
Hospital Care Taker, 2022 were notified vide advertisements dated
12.05.2022 and 23.05.2022 respectively. It is undisputed that the
respondent commission received a letter dated 01.07.2022 from
the Department of Health and Family Welfare, to make the
conditions of notification dated 23.05.2022 applicable in the
recruitment to the 55 posts of the Hospital Care Taker and letter
dated 04.08.2022 to make the said notification applicable upon the
recruitment qua the 24 posts of the Occupational Therapist.
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(7 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
12. Successively, learned senior counsel had averred that
the impugned conditions as referred in the advertisement dated
27.11.2021 under clause “Selection Procedure” under the head of
“Other details” that the selection of the candidate shall be entirely
on the basis of the interview and in event, if the applications are
received in higher number, then the respondent-RPSC shall
undertake the scrutiny examination and keep the number of
candidates within appropriate limit. Therefore, it can be deduced
that a selection process based in-toto on an interview is not only
illegal and against the norms of the fair and transparent method of
selection but also violative of the fundamental rights of the
petitioner as enshrined under the provisions of Article 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India.
13. Amongst the manifold contentions, the key contention
made by the learned senior counsel was that the notification dated
23.05.2022 was published resultant to the State Cabinet meeting
and the provisions of the Rules of 1962, wherein clause (2) of the
said notification categorically states that the State Government
cannot take a plea that the notification dated 23.05.2022 can only
be applied prospectively. Thence, the said notification is ought to
have a retrospective effect upon all the similarly situated
examinations/selection processes as per the provisions of Rule 19
of the Rules of 1962.
14. At this nascent juncture learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners have placed reliance upon a catena of judgments
passed by various High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court. Some of
the relied upon dictums amongst others were Ajay Hasia & Ors.
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(8 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. reported in (1981) 1 SCC
722, Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
reported in AIR 1987 SC 454 and Praveen Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 633. Whilst placing
reliance upon the afore-cited judgments it was contended that in
situations where the conditions of the advertisement are per-se
arbitrary, illegal and as per the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules
of 1962, the beneficial grant of notifications in consonance with the
Cabinet decisions should be enforced.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS. 15. Per contra, learned counsel representing the
respondents in one voice have stoutly opposed the contentions
made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have
raised a preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the instant
petition and the same being hit and barred by the principle of
delay and laches as the same is filed after a delay of approximately
three years (in the year 2024), assailing a selection
process/examination which was advertised way back in the year
2021 and qua which the written examination was scheduled and
conducted in the year 2022 wherein even the petitioner had
appeared.
16. Learned counsel representing the State had further
averred that the full Commission of the respondent-RPSC had
taken a decision to allocate the weightage of final marks in the
method 40% weightage of the marks obtained in screening
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(9 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
examination, 20% for academics and 40% of marks obtained in
the interview. Wherein, on the posts where there was no
requirement to conduct a screening examination the allocation of
marks was 40% weightage to academics and 60% to the
interview. However, subsequently i.e. on 23.05.2022 (even after
the date of written examination of the instant selection process) a
notification was issued by the State government amending the
provisions of various service rules, whereby the amendment in the
provision relating to the “Scrutiny of applications and
examinations” was done and the weightage of the interview marks
were restricted to 10%. Therein, it was also mentioned that the
amendment rules shall come into force from the date of
publication. Hence, no retrospective effect could be granted.
17. To substantiate the contentions made insofar, learned
counsel representing respondents had placed reliance upon the
ratio encapsulated in Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. Vs. the State of
Jammu and Kashmir reported in 2023/INSC/309, and had
averred that candidates who have participated in the public
examinations sans any demur or protest cannot challenge the
same after being declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot
approbate and reprobate at the same time. Moreover, simply
because the result of the said selection process was not palatable
to a candidate, he/she cannot allege that the process of interview
was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process.
18. Learned counsel had also placed reliance upon a catena
of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, a few of them
amongst others were Madhya Pradesh Public Service
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(10 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar reported in (1994) 6
SCC 293, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji
Badhavath reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1, Rekha Sharma Vs.
Rajasthan High Court – Civil Appeal No. 5051 of 2023, Jugal
Kishore Sevda Vs. the State of Rajasthan – DBCWP No.
17377/2024, Tej Prakash Pathak Vs. Rajasthan High Court
reported in 2024 INSC 847, Anzar Ahmad Vs. the State of
Bihar and Ors. reported in 1994 (1) SCC 150.
19. Consecutively, learned counsel had placed reliance upon
the note-sheet of RPSC numbering 80/247 to 89/256 dated
09.05.2022, which was applicable qua the present advertisement
also and had averred that the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of
1962, in the pre-amendment publication, will be applicable qua the
petitioner upon a conjoint reading with the terms and conditions of
the advertisement and the Full Commission decision of allocating
40% marks qua screening test, 20% marks for the academic
performance and 40% qua the interview and where screening test
is not required, allocation of marks will be 40% to the academics
and 60% to the interview.
20. Moreover, the petitioner had not assailed the validity of
Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962, hence, at this nascent juncture
cannot plead to remove the criteria of 100% interview. Withal, the
provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962 are not mandatory in
nature and are discretionary; thence the respondent-RPSC in its
discretion had defined its own mode and method of selection. It
was further contended that the said selection process was carried
out according to the conditions mentioned in the advertisement,
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(11 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
pre-amended Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962 and in-line with the
provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the said recruitment process was conducted in
an un-bias or non-transparent manner.
21. Lastly, learned counsel representing the respondents
endorsing the aforementioned averments, in one voice have
averred that the interview not only check the knowledge and
intelligence of a candidate, but also the over-all personality,
presentation, mental ability to handle pressure, promptness and
confidence, and the said qualities are warranted qua the said post.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
22. Upon an assiduous scanning of the record, considering
the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case,
considering the judgments cited at the Bar and taking note of the
arguments averred by the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court at this juncture, deems it appropriate to jot down indubitable
facts:-
22.1 That the respondent-RPSC issued an advertisement
bearing No.06/2021-22 dated 27.11.2021 for the post of Assistant
Professor under the Rules of 1962; inviting online applications for
337 posts in different faculties, wherein from serial No.1 to 24,
posts were for Broad Specialty and from serial No.25 to 43 the
posts were for Super Specialty faculties.
22.2 That as per the “Other details” and the “Selection
process” the criteria mentioned was by direct mode of selection by
an interview with a caveat that if in case the number of
candidates/application forms received was exceeding the
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(12 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]advertised posts, the Commission would be at a liberty to conduct
a screening test. The relevant extract from the said advertisement
is reiterated herein below:
” p;u izfdz;k :
vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k
tk;sxkA ;fn foKkiu ds vk/kkj ij izkIr vkosnu i=ksa dh
la[;k vf/kd gksxh rks vk;ksx laoh{kk ijh{kk vk;ksftr dj
vH;fFkZ;ksa dh la[;k ;Fkksfpr lhek rd de dj ldrk
gSA”
22.3 That the primary contention of the petitioner is that on
account of amendment in the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of
1962, vide notification dated 23.05.2022, the criteria of selection is
written examination along with interview with the rider that
weightage to the interview marks shall not be beyond 10% of the
total marks in any selection process. It is apprehended by the
petitioner that more than 10% marks will be allocated towards
interview, which will change the merits moreover, the same shall
not be a transparent and un-biased manner for selection via a
public examination.
22.4 That the selection criteria were envisaged under the
provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962, which was amended
vide notification dated 23.05.2022. For the sake of convenience
the pre and post amendment provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of
1962 is reproduced herein below:
“Post-amendment:
19. Scrutiny of applications and examination.-
(1) The applications received by the Commission
which are found to be incomplete shall be rejected
buy them. Before appearing in the examination, it
should be ensured by the candidates himself/herself(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(13 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]that he/she fulfills the conditions in regard to age,
educational qualifications, experience, if any, etc. as
provided in these rules. Being allowed to take the
examination shall not entitle the candidate to
presumption of eligibility. The commission shall
scrutinize later on the applications of such candidates
only as qualify in the written examination and shall
call only the eligible candidates for interview.
(2) The candidates shall have to appear in the written
examination and the candidates who obtained such
marks as may be fixed by the Commission in their
discretion shall be summoned by the Commission for
interview shall have to appear in interview. The
allocation of marks for interview shall not be more
than 10% of the total marks taken into account for
the purpose of selection.
Prior to the amendment:
“19. Scrutiny of applications- The Commission shall
scrutinize the applications received by them and
require as many candidates qualified for appointment
under these rules as seem to them desirable to
appear before them for interview.
Provided that the decision of the Commission as to the
eligibility or otherwise of a candidate, shall be final.”
22.5 That the last date for submitting the said online
applications for the said recruitment was 22.12.2021 and the
petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the
Department of Skin and V.D., for which, three posts were
advertised.
22.6 That in the erstwhile round of litigation, wherein the
petitioner was one of the impleaded party by way of her
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(14 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
application filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC; the said petition
was filed assailing the non-consideration and mis-computation of
the backlog vacancies qua the SC and ST candidates. The said
petition i.e. SB Civil Writ Petition No.1977/2022 (Supra) was
decided vide judgment dated 30.05.2024. Subsequently, a review
petition was filed.
22.7 That resultant to the said petition an interim protection
(order dated 04.05.2022) was operative, whereby it was directed
that the respondent-RPSC shall not release the results qua the
impugned selection/recruitment procedure. The relevant extract of
the interim protection order dated 04.05.2022 is reproduced herein
below:
“04/05/2022
Counsel for the respondent(s) seeks one week’s
time to file reply.
Time prayed for is allowed.
The matter relates to non-application of
reservation in the advertisement in question.
Meanwhile, the respondent-RPSC is directed not
to declare the result in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 27.11.2021. However, the
respondent(s) are at liberty to file application for
modification/vacation of this order after filing of
the reply.
List along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4027/2022 on 16.05.2022."
22.8 That the written examination (screening test) qua the
impugned selection process was scheduled and conducted on
06.05.2022 and the result qua the same was released by the
respondent-RPSC on 10.05.2022. From the said timeline it can be
noted that the petitioner and the similarly situated persons have
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(15 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]assailed the illegalities of the instant selection process prior to the
conduct of the said examination.
22.9 That on 10.05.2022 a State Cabinet meeting was held
and upon considering the vital circumstances, the same resulted to
issuance of notification dated 23.05.2022. the relevant extract
from the said minutes of meeting is reproduced herein below:
^^cSBd esa ,sls in ftudh dk;Z izd`fr ,oa Hkwfedk ds dkj.k p;u
izfdz;k esa lk{kkRdkj vko’;d ugha le>k x;k gS] muesa lk{kkRdkj
ds izko/kku gVkus ,oa ,sls in ftuesa laokn dkS’ky dh vko’;drk
gS muesa Hkkjkad dqy vadksa dk vf/kdre 10 izfr’kr fu/kkZfjr djus
ds fy, la’kks/ku dk fu.kZ; fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh jktLFkku yksd
lsok vk;ksx }kjk lh/kh HkrhZ ds tfj;s Hkjs tkus ftu inksa ds fy,
lk{kkRdkj dk izko/kku gS] mu inksa esa jktLFkku jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk
lsok,a ¼la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk }kjk lh/kh HkrhZ½ fu;e 1999
¼vkj,l HkrhZ½ ,oa dqN fof’k”V lsok fu;eksa dks NksM+dj vU; lHkh
lsok fu;eksa esa lk{kkRdkj dk izko/kku gVkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k
gSA**22.10 That the Court to attain a better clarification qua
the whilom practice adapted by the respondent-RPSC to conduct
such examinations, the record was called. Upon a perusal of the
records of the RPSC, it is revealed that a decision was taken vide
note sheet dated 10.05.2022, wherein in the diary, pertaining to
present advertisement, the RPSC vide serial No.80/247-89/256
has taken following decision:
“80@247 d`i;k iSjk 50@uksV dk voyksdu djsaA blds rgr vk;ksx
fpfdRlk f’k{kk foHkkx ds lgk;d vkpk;Z ds czkWM Lis’kfyVh ,oa lqij
Lis’kfyVh ds fofHkUu inksa ij HkrhZ ds lEcU/k esa ;g fofHkUu fo”k;ksa ftuesa
vkosnu i=ksa dh vf/kd
la[;k gS] ds fy, laoh{kk ijh{kk fnukad 05 ,oa 06 ebZ] 2022 dks
vk;ksftr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor fd;k x;k Fkk blds lkFk gh lEiw.kZ
vk;ksx dh cSBd fnukad 10-03-2022 esa fn, x, funsZ’kksa ds dze esa
fofHkUu U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa ds n`f”Vxr leqfpr fof/kd ijh{k.k o lEiw.kZ rF;ksa
o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk v/;u dj ijhiw.kZ izLrko vk;ksx ds le{k fu.kZ;kFkZ
izLrqr fd;s tkus ds funsZ’k fn, x, FksA mDr iSjk 60@uksV ij vafdr(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(16 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]izLrko ij lEiw.kZ vk;ksx }kjk ifjlapj.k ds ek/;e ls fopkj fd;k
x;k ,oa iSjk 60&,@uksV ij iqf”V dh xbZA81@248 bl dze esa lEiw.kZ vk;ksx dh cSBd fnukad 10-3-2022
easa ,ts.Mk la[;k 1] ij fy;k x;k fu.kZ; mYys[kuh; gS] tks ist&1 ij
miyC/k gSA bl lEca/k esa vk;ksx ds fofHkUu vuqHkkxksa }kjk ijh{k.k fd;k
x;kA fu;e vuqHkkx }kjk izdj.k esa iSjk 25&26@uksV ij fVIi.kh dh xbZ
gS fd jktLFkku fpfdRlk lsok ¼dkWfyft,V czkap½ fu;e] 1962 ds vUrxZr
lgk;d vkpk;Z ds in gsrq lh/kh HkrhZ dsoy lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls Hkjs
tkus dk izko/kku mYysf[kr gSA82@249 blh izdkj iSjk 27 ls 31@uksV ij HkrhZ xksiuh;
vuqHkkx }kjk fVIi.kh dh xbZ] ftlesa fo’ks”kr% mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS
fd ;fn dfri; fo”k;ksa@fof’k”Vrkvksa gsrq laoh{kk ijh{kk vk;ksftr ugha dh
tkrh gS rks] lEiw.kZ vk;ksx dh cSBd fnukad 24-04-219 easa lk{kkRdkj ds
Hkkjkad ds lEcU/k esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj p;u izfdz;k lEHko ugha
gks ik,xhA vr% lEiw.kZ vk;ksx }kjk fnukad 24-04-2019 dks fu/kkZfjr dh
xbZ p;u izfdz;k ij iqu% fopkj fd;k tkuk vko’;d gksxkA83@250 HkrhZ ^^[k^^ vuqHkkx }kjk bl lEcU/k esa iSjk 32 ls 37@uksV
ij dh xbZ fVIi.kh esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd foKkiu ist&11 ij ij
vU; fooj.k ds gSfMax esa p;u izfdz;k esa vafdrkuqlkj mDr in gsrq
vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA ;fn foKkiu
ds vk/kkj ij izkIr vkosnu i=ksa dh la[;k vf/kd gksxh rks laoh{kk ijh{kk
vk;ksftr dj vH;fFkZ;ksa dh la[;k ;Fkksfpr lhek rd de dj ldrk gSA84@251 ijh{kk vk;kstu&11 ¼vuqHkkx½ dh fVIi.kh iSjk 13¼6½@ uksV
ds vuqlkj 45 ;k blls de vkosnu i=ksa okys fo”k;ksa ,oa dze la[;k 18]
25 o 31 easa vafdr fo”k;ksa esa lh/ks lk{kkRdkj vk;ksftr fd, tk ldrs gSaA85@252 fof/k vuqHkkx }kjk iSjk 52 ls 55@ uksV ij vk;ksx ds
fu.kZ; fnukad 24-04-2019 }kjk izLrqr p;u izfdz;k@lk{kkRdkj uhfr ds
fo:) ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj o t;iqj esa nk;j
fjV ;kfpdkvksa dk fooj.k ist&24&25 ij izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA86@253 blh izdkj fof/k vuqHkkx }kjk izdj.k dk iqu% ijh{k.k iSjk
76 ls 79@uksV ij fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd
lEiw.kZ vk;ksx ds fu.kZ; fnukad 24-04-2019 lk{kkRdkj gsrq laoh{kk ijh{kk
ds izkIrkad] vdknfed Js”Brk o iz’uksRrj dk Hkkjkad fu/kkZfjr fd;s tkus
ds lEcU/k esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds fo:) HkrhZ [k.M ls lEcfU/kr fofHkUu
ijh{kkvksa ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj@tks/kiqj
esa ;kfpdk,a izLrqr dh xbZ FkhA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj }kjk 9
fjV ;kfpdk,a fuLrkfjr dh xbZ gSA ftudk fooj.k ist&24&25 ij
miyC/k gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr fu.jkZ; fnukad 08-03-2022
ist&29 esa ;kfpdkvksa dks eatwj djrs gq, vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd vk;ksx }
kjk viukbZ tkus okyh izfdz;k foKkiu esa vafdr izfdz;k ls i`Fkd ugha gks(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(17 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]ldrhA foKkiu esa laoh{kk ijh{kk ds 40 vad] ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds 20 vad
,oa lk{kkRdkj ds 40 vad dk Hkkjkad fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA vr%
lk{kkRdkj vk;ksftr fd, tkus ls iwoZ laoh{kk ijh{kk ,oa ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk
dk Hkkjkad tksM+s tkus pkfg,A mDr fu.kZ; ds fo:) vk;ksx }kjk
[k.MihB esa vihy fd, tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkdj vihy nk;j dh xbZ
gSA mijksDr ;kfpdkvksa esa vkisf{kr leLr HkrhZ izfdz;kvksa esa laoh{kk ijh{kk
vk;ksftr dh xbZ Fkh tks fd dsoy ek= shortlisting gsrq dh xbZ FkhA
buls lEcfU/kr fu;eksa esa Li”V izko/kku gS fd vk;ksx }kjk izkIr vkosnu
i=ksa dks scrutinise dj ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq vkeaf=r
djsxk lkFk gh bu fu;eksa ds ijUrqd esa ;g izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd
ik=rk fu/kkZj.k gsrq vk;ksx dk fu.kZ; vafre gksxkA lEiw.kZ vk;ksx }kjk tks
Hkkjkad dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k gS] og lk{kkRdkj ds fy, fd;k x;k gSA
lk{kkRdkj cksMZ }kjk vadksa dk foHkktu fd;k tkuk iw.kZr% lk{kkRdkj cksMZ
dk Lofoosdkf/kdkj gSA fpfdRlk f’k{kk foHkkx ds lgk;d vkpk;Z ds inksa
ij HkrhZ gsrq vk;ksx }kjk tkjh foKkiu 27-11-2021 esa ;g Li”V mYysf[kr
gS fd vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk,xk vkSj ;fn
vkosnu i=ksa dh vf/kd la[;k gksus ij laoh{kk ijh{kk vk;ksftr dh
tk,xhA jktLFkku fpfdRlk lsok ¼dkWfyftLV czkap½ fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e
19 Scrutiny of applications ist&6 esa Hkh lekukFkhZ izko/kku fd;k
x;k gSA vr% fnukad 24-04-2019 dks vk;ksx }kjk Hkkjkad ds lEcU/k esa
fy, x, fu.kZ; dh leh{kk fd;s tkus esa dksbZ vojks/k ugha gSA87@254 izdj.k esa lEcU/k esa ekuuh; lnL; ¼ts-,l-vkj½ }kjk cSBd
esa fn, x, funsZ’kksa ds dze esa mDr foKkiu ds rgr fofHkUu fof’k”Vrkvksa
ds fy, HkrhZ fd, tkus ds fy, fuEukuqlkj izLrko izsf”kr djus ds funsZ’k
fn, x, gSa%&
(A) fo”k;ksa dk fooj.k ftuds lEcU/k esa vf/kd la[;k esa izkIr vkosnu
i=ksa dh la[;k dks ns[krs gq, laoh{kk ijh{kk dh frfFk 05 ,oa 06 ebZ] 2022
fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gS] ftudk fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gSa%&S.No. Subject No. of post No. of Broad/Super
Application Specialisty
1. Anaesthesiology 21 331 Broad
Specialisty
2. General Medicine 32 398 Broad
Specialisty
3. Genral Surgery 41 296 Broad
Specialisty
4. Obstetrics & 40 394 Broad
Gynaecology Specialisty
5. Opthalmology 05 136 Broad
Specialisty
6. T.B. & Chest 11 100 Broad
Specialisty(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(18 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
7. Orthopaedics 29 286 Broad
Specialisty
8. Ortho-Rhino- 09 162 Broad
Laryngology Specialisty
9. Padeatrics 22 282 Broad
Specialisty
10. Psychiatry 09 118 Broad
Specialisty
11. Radiodiagnosis 18 76 Broad
Specialisty
12. Skin & V.D. 03 75 Broad
Specialisty
13. Cardiology 07 52 Super
Speciality
14. Neuro Surgery 09 57 Super
Speciality(B) Assistant Professor, Geriatric Medicine,
Emergency Medicine, Palliative Medicine, Medical
Oncology and Paediatrics Nephrology ¼dqy 5 fof’k”Vrkvksa½ ds
lEcU/k esa la’kksf/kr foKkiu tkjh dj iqu% vkosnu i= vkeaf=r fd, x, gSaA vr%
mDr fof’k”Vrkvksa ds fy, laoh{kk ijh{kk vk;ksftr fd, tkus ;k lh/ks gh lk{kkRdkj
izfdz;k viuk, tkus ds lEcU/k esa fu.kZ; izkIr gksus okys vkosnu i=ksa dh la[;k ds
vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA
(C) fuEukafdr fo”k;ksa@fof’k”Vrkvksa ds lEcU/k esa lh/ks lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls
p;u izfdz;k fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA lh/ks lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls p;u fd, tkus
dh fLFkfr esa lk{kkRdkj ds nkSjku Hkkjkad fuEukuqlkj j[ks tkus ds funsZ’k fn, x, gSa%&
vdknfed ;ksX;rk & 40 vad
lk{kkRdkj esa izn’kZu & 60 vad
S.No Subject No. of post No. of Broad/Super
. Applicatio Specialisty
n
1. Pharmacology 02 23 Broad
Specialisty
2. Physical Medicine & 05 22 Broad
Renabilation Specialisty
3. Cardio Vascular & 05 18 Super
Thoracic Surgery Specialisty
4. Gastronetrology 03 14 Super
Specialisty
5. Nephrology 02 4 Super
Specialisty
6. Paediatrics Surgery 05 11 Super
Specialisty(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(19 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
7. Surgical 02 24 Super
Gastroenterology Specialisty
8. Surgical Oncology 04 08 Super
Specialisty
9. Clinical 02 07 Super
Immunology & Specialisty
Rheumatology
10. Paediatrics 01 05 Super
Cardiology Specialisty
11. Paediatrics 01 04 Broad
Gastroenterology Specialisty
12. Paediatrics 01 4 Super
Neurolotgy Specialisty
13. Paediatrics 01 01 Super
Pulmonary Specialitybl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd la?k yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk lk{kkRdkj ds
ek/;e ls HkrhZ fd;s tkus okys ekeyksa esa lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk;s tkus okys
vH;fFkZ;ksa dh la[;k fuEukuqlkj fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gS &
1 in ds fy, & 12 vH;fFkZ;ksa rd2 ls 3 inksa ds fy, & 24 vH;fFkZ;ksa rd
4 ls 6 inksa ds fy, & 36 vH;fFkZ;ksa rd
7 ls 9 inksa ds fy, & 48 vH;fFkZ;ksa rd
10 vkSj mlls vf/kd in ds fy, & 50 ;k mlls vf/kd
vH;fFkZ;ksa rd inksa ds
5 xquk½
la?k yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk viukbZ tkus okyh mDr la[;k dks n`f”Vxr
j[krs gq, ekuuh; lnL; ¼ts-,l-vkj-½ }kjk mDr fof’k”Vrkvksa gsrq laoh{kk
ijh{kk dk vk;kstu u dj lh/ks lk{kkRdkj fd;s tkus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k
gSA
‘ks”k fuEukafdr fo”k;ksa esa izkIr vkosnu i=ksa dh la[;k dks n`f”Vxr j[krs
gq, laoh{kk ijh{kk vk;ksftr fd, tkus ,oa rnqijkUr lk{kkRdkj izfdz;k
viukrs gq, vk;ksx ds fu.kZ; fnukad 24-04-2019 ds vuqlkj lk{kkRdkj esa
Hkkjkad j[ks tkuk izLrkfor fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj dqy 25 fof’k”Vrkvksa
esa vk;ksx ds fu.kZ; fnukad 24-04-2019 ds vuqlkj lk{kkRdkj esa Hkkjkad
iwokZuqlkj ;Fkk laoh{kk ijh{kk esa izkIrkadksa dk 40 izfr’kr vdknfed dk
Hkkjkad 20 izfr’kr ,oa lk{kkRdkj esa izn’kZu dk ekud 40 izfr’kr j[kk
tku k gSA
vr% mijksDrkuqlkj fu.kZ; gsrq izdj.k lEiw.kZ vk;ksx dh cSBd vk;ksftr
dj vFkok ifjlapj.k (Circulation) ds ek/;e ls fd, tkus gsrq
fopkjkFkZ ,oa vkns’kkFkZ izLrqr gSA”
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(20 of 38) [CW-15018/2024] 22.11 That the conclusion of the afore-reiterated extract from
the note-sheet dated 10.05.2022 is explicitly admitted in the reply
filed by the respondent no. 2. For the sake of convenience the
relevant paragraph from the reply is reproduced herein below:
“That the Full Commission of the Respondent No.2
had also taken a decision to allocate the weightage of
final marks in the method 40% weightage of the
marks obtained in screening examination, 20%
weightage of marks obtained for academics and 40%
weightage of marks obtained in interview; which was
also present in previous recruitments, [Annexure 11 –
Page 130 of Paperbook of the Writ]. Wherein on the
posts where there was no recruitment to host the
screening examination the allocation of marks was
40% weightage to academics and 60% weightage to
Interview.”
22.12 That qua the records furnished by the RPSC i.e.
records and details qua the preceding three selection process of
akin type as that of the present advertisement (which were
discussed in the Court during a camera trial hearing to maintain
the secrecy) to maintain the confidentiality, it can be summarily
noted that prior to reaching a conclusion the Court has perused file
bearing No.F/7(35) Bharti/Confidential/2014-15, No. F7(2)
Bharti/2016-17/Confidential, file No. F7(38)(5)/2018-19, certain
documents pertaining to advertisement No.8/2019-20,
advertisement No.4/2016 & advertisement No.3/2015-16, and
other miscellaneous documents exhibiting e-mails, procedure of
calling the experts and their recordings, instructions for the
interviewers, instructions for the experts to formulate their
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(21 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
opinion, along with the Full Commission decision qua the impugned
advertisement.
22.13 That upon a perusal of the three whilom selection
procedures, the conscience of the Court is utterly shocked as it is
noted that the respondent-RPSC has adopted and followed an
opaque and unaccountable procedure. The respondent-RPSC had
marked and addressed the doctors who were members of the
interview panel as advisors and assistants likewise, no cogent
rationale of the experts are noted. Therefore, it can be assumed
that the experts were included in the said interviewers’ panel just
for a namesake purpose; they did not have any apparent stance
and the marks were allotted by the members of RPSC.
22.14 That the mark-sheets that were exhibited in the
records did not specify the break-up of marks or any categorical
bifurcation, moreover the same were undated qua the signatures
of the experts (terminology used by RPSC “advisors”) nor it was
undersigned by the expert. The written examination answer-sheets
formulate a substantial piece of evidence, hence, are ought to be
maintained with utmost cautiousness conversely, RPSC has
omitted to follow the settled procedure of law and have altered the
quintessential examination pattern. It is contemptible that the
RPSC had not followed the ratio decidendi that is formulated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court over the years.
23. Ergo, considering the aforementioned, juxtaposing the
averments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition for the following
reasons:
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(22 of 38) [CW-15018/2024] 23.1 Qua the impugned advertisement dated 27.11.2021 in
the advertisement criteria, as prescribed vide Annexure – 11 i.e.
the advertisement dated 17.01.2020 numbering 8/2019-20
(referred as to ‘previous advertisement’) the selection criteria was
endorsed and adopted wherein 40% marks were prescribed for
screening test, 20% marks qua academic performance and 40%
marks were allocated for interview and in case, the screening test
is not carried out, qua some of the faculties, 40 marks will be
allocated for academic performance and 60 marks to the interview.
Conversely, the note-sheet dated 10.05.2022 had categorically
noted that the respondents have adopted the criteria for selection
process that was made applicable upon the erstwhile examination,
bypassing the amended provisions of the Rules of 1962 and the
criteria mentioned in the existing advertisement. Thence, it can be
noted that the respondent-RPSC has changed the rules of the
game mid-way.
23.2 The Court vide order dated 27.07.2024 passed in
SBCWP No. 1777/2022 directed the Chairman, RPSC and Chief
Secretary (Medical) to file an affidavit tendering reasonable
justification qua the effect of the notification dated 23.05.2022 and
whether in any other examinations the condition of the notification
dated 23.05.2022 was given a retrospective effect. Resultant to
the said directions the Chairman, RPSC had filed an affidavit
wherein under paragraph nos. 4 to 10 it is acknowledged and
stated that on the directions of the Department of Health and
Family Welfare, the notification dated 23.05.2022 was made
applicable qua the post of Operational Therapists, 2022 and
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(23 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
Hospital Care Taker, 2022 which were advertised vide
advertisements dated 12.05.2022 and 23.05.2022. Howsoever, the
ACS, Home has not given the said details and suppressed the fact,
on account of which this Court is compelled to draw an adverse
inference.
23.3 The preliminary issue before this Court for adjudication
is that whether qua the advertisement dated 27.11.2021
(Annexure-1), the petitioner can claim the benefit of the
notification dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure-2) whereby, the Rule 19
of the Rules of 1962 was amended and it was categorically stated
that in the public examinations/selection process to maintain
transparency and un-biasness, the maximum of 10% of the total
marks of the examination can only be allotted to the interview?
23.3.1 That from a bare perusal of the impugned
advertisement it can be deduced that in the same no categorical
bifurcation qua the marks allotted to the written examination or
interview is prescribed unlike the erstwhile advertisement i.e.
advertisement dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure-11) wherein, 40%
marks were prescribed for screening test, 20% marks qua
academic performance and 40% marks were allocated for
interview and in case, the screening test is not carried out, qua
some of the faculties, 40 marks will be allocated for academic
performance and 60 marks to the interview.
23.3.2 That respondent-RPSC during the process of
selection/recruitment examination took a decision to apply the
afore-stated bifurcation upon the instant examination. The same is
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(24 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
made unambiguous and admitted in paragraph no. 4 of the reply
filed by the respondents.
23.3.3 That as per the ratio encapsulated in Ajay Hasia
(Supra), it can be noted that neither an interview can be
considered as principal basis of selection nor the same is an
exclusive test. Moreover, the same can only be an additional stage
to examine the promptness and intelligence of the candidate. The
relevant extract from the afore-cited ratio is reproduced herein
below:
“We would, however, like to point out that in the
matter of admission to college or even in the
matter of public employment, the oral
interview test as presently held should not
be relied upon as an exclusive test, but it
may be resorted to only as an additional or
supplementary test and, moreover, great care
must be taken to see that persons who are
appointed to conduct the oral interview test are
men of high integrity, caliber and qualification.
We are of the view that, under the existing
circumstances, allocation of more than 15
per cent of the total marks for the interview
would be liable to be struck down as
constitutionally invalid.
We think that it would also be desirable if the
interview of the candidates is tape-recorded, for
in that event there will be contemporaneous
evidence to show what were the questions asked
to the candidates by the interviewing committee
and what were the answers given and that will
eliminate a lot of unnecessary controversy(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(25 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]besides acting as a check on the possible
arbitrariness of the interviewing committee.”
(Emphasis laid)
23.3.4 That a similar view was adopted by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the dictum passed in Ashok Kumar Yadav
(supra). The Court had categorically noted that in case an
interview is conducted by the examination/recruitment authorities,
the candidate to ultimately qualify an examination has to attain
specific number of marks in the written examination. Withal,
awarding extraordinary percentage to interview jeopardizes the
efforts and rights of the meritorious candidates. The relevant
extract from the same is reproduced herein below:
“28. The position is no different when we
examine the question in regard to the percentage
of marks allocated for the viva voce test in case
of persons belonging to the general category. The
percentage in the case of these candidates is less
than that in the case of ex-service officers, but
even so it is quite high at the figure of 22.2. Here
also it has been pointed out by the Division
Bench by giving facts and figures as to how in the
case of present selections from the general
category the spread of marks in the viva voce
test was inordinately high compared to the
spread of marks in the written examination so
that a candidate receiving low marks in the
written examination could be pulled up to a high
position in the merit list by inordinately high
marking in the viva voce test. The viva voce test
in the general category, too, would consequently
tend to become a determining factor in the(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(26 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]process of selection, tilting the scales in favour of
one candidate or the other according to the
marks awarded to him in the viva voce test. This
is amply borne out by the observations of the
Kothari Committee in the Report made by it in
regard to the selections to the Indian
Administrative Service and other allied services.
The competitive examination in the Indian
Administrative Service and other allied services
also consists of a written examination followed by
a viva voce test. Earlier in 1948 the percentage
of marks allocated for the viva voce test was 22
and it was marginally brought down to 21.60 in
1951 and then again in 1964, it was scaled down
to 17.11. The Kothari Committee in its Report
made in 1976 pleaded for further reduction of the
percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce
test and strongly recommended that the viva
voce test should carry only 300 out of a total of
3000 marks. The Kothari Committee pointed out
that even where the percentage of marks
allocated for the viva voce test was 17.11, nearly
1/4th of the candidates selected owed their
success to the marks obtained by them at the
viva voce test. This proportion was regarded by
the Kothari Committee as “somewhat on the high
side”. It is significant to note that
consequent upon the Kothari Committee
Report, the percentage of marks allocated
for the viva voce test in the competitive
examination for the Indian Administrative
Service and other allied services was
brought down still further to 12.2. The
result is that since the last few years, even
for selection of candidates in the Indian
Administrative Service and other allied(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(27 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]services where the personality of the
candidate and his personnel characteristics
and traits are extremely relevant for the
purpose of selection, the marks allocated for
the viva voce test constitute only 12.2 per
cent of the total marks. Now if it was found in
the case of selections to the Indian
Administrative Service and other allied services
that the allocation of even 17.11 per cent marks
for the viva voce test was on the higher side and
it was responsible for nearly 1/4th of the selected
candidates securing a place in the select list
owing to the marks obtained by them at the viva
voce test, the allocation of 22.2 per cent marks
for the viva voce test would certainly be likely to
create a wider scope for arbitrariness. When the
Kothari Committee admittedly an Expert
Committee, constituted for the purpose of
examining recruitment policy and selection
methods for the Indian Administrative Service
and other allied services took the view that the
allocation of 17.1 per cent marks for the viva
voce test was on the higher side and required to
be reduced, it would be legitimate to hold that in
case of selections to the Haryana Civil Services
(Executive Branch) and other allied services,
which are services of similar nature in the State,
the allocation of 22.2 per cent marks for the viva
voce test was unreasonable. We must therefore
regard the allocation of 22.2 per cent of the total
marks for the viva voce test as infecting the
selection process with the vice of arbitrariness.
29. But the question which then arises for
consideration is as to what is the effect of
allocation of such a high percentage of marks for(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(28 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]the viva voce test, both in case of ex-service
officers and in case of other candidates, on the
selections made by the Haryana Public Service
Commission. Though we have taken the view that
the percentage of marks allocated for the viva
voce test in both these cases is excessive, we do
not think we would be justified in the exercise of
our discretion in setting aside the selections
made by the Haryana Public Service Commission
after the lapse of almost two years. The
candidates selected by the Haryana Public
Service Commission have already been appointed
to various posts and have been working on these
posts since the last about two years. Moreover
the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules
1930 under which 33. 3 per cent marks in case of
ex-service officers and 22.2 per cent marks in
case of other candidates, have been allocated for
the viva voce test have been in force for almost
50 years and everyone has acted on the basis
rules. If selections made in accordance with the
prescription contained in these rules are now to
be set aside, it will upset a large number of
appointments already made on the basis of such
selections and the integrity and efficiency of the
entire administrative machinery would be
seriously jeopardised. We do not therefore
propose to set aside the selections made by the
Haryana Public Service Commission though they
have been made on the basis of an unduly high
percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce
test.
30. Now if the allocation of such a high
percentage of marks as 33.3 in case of ex-
service officers and 22.2 in case of other(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(29 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]candidates. For the viva voce test is excessive,
as held by us, what should be the proper
percentage of marks to be allocated for the viva
voce test in both these cases. So far as
candidates in the general category are
concerned we think that it would be prudent and
safe to follow the percentage adopted by the
Union Public Service Commission in case of
selections to the Indian Administrative Service
and other allied services. The percentage of
marks allocated for the viva voce test by the
Union Public Service Commission in case of
selections to the Indian Administrative Services
and other allied service is 12.2 and that has
been found to be fair and just, as striking a
proper balance between the written examination
and the viva voce test. We would therefore
direct that hereafter in case of selections to be
made to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive
Branch) and other allied services, where the
competitive examination consists of a written
examination followed by a viva voce test, the
marks allocated for the viva voce test shall not
exceed 12.2 per cent of the total marks taken
into account for the purpose of selection We
would suggest that this percentage should also
be adopted by the Public Service Commissions is
other States, because it is desirable that there
should be uniformity in the selection process
throughout the country and the practice followed
by the Union Public Service Commission should
be taken as a guide for the State Public Service
Commissions to adopt and follow. The
percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce
test case of ex-service officers may, for reasons
we have already discussed, be somewhat higher(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(30 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]than the percentage for the candidates
belonging to the general category. We would
therefore direct that in case of ex-service
officers, having regard to the fact that they
would ordinarily be middle aged persons with
personalities fully developed the percentage of
marks allocated for the viva voce test may be
25. Whatever selections are made by the
Haryana Public Service Commission in the future
shall be on the basis that the marks allocated for
the viva voce test shall not exceed 12.2 per cent
in case of candidates belonging to the general
category and 25 per cent in case of ex-service
officers.
33. We accordingly allow the appeals, set aside
the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court and reject the challenge to the validity of
the selections made by the Haryana Public
Service Commission to the Haryana Civil Services
(Executive Branch) and other allied services. But
in view of the fact that an unduly large
number of candidates were called for
interview and the marks allocated in the
viva voce test were excessively high, it is
possible that some of the candidates who
might have otherwise come in the select list
were left out of it, perhaps unjustifiably. We
would therefore direct that all the candidates who
secured a minimum of 45 per cent marks in the
written examination but who could not find entry
in the select list, should be given one more
opportunity of appearing in the competitive
examination which would now have to be held in
accordance with the principles laid down in this
Judgment and this opportunity should be given to(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(31 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]them, even though they may have passed the
maximum age prescribed by the rules for
recruitment to the Haryana Civil Services
(Executive Branch) and other allied services. We
would direct that in the circumstances of the case
the fair order of costs would be that each party
should bear and pay his own costs throughout.”
(Emphasis laid)
23.3.5 That even in the ratio encapsulated in Praveen Singh
(supra) identical view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
“9. What does Kulshreshtha’s case (supra)
depict? Does it say that interview should be
only method of assessment of the merits of
the candidates? The answer obviously
cannot be in the affirmative. The vice of
manipulation, we are afraid cannot be ruled
out. Though interview undoubtedly a
significant factor in the matter of
appointment. It plays a strategic role but it
also allows creeping in of a lacuna
rendering the appointments illegitimate.
Obviously it is an important factor but
ought not to be the sole guiding factor
since reliance thereon only may lead to a
“sabotage of the purity of the proceedings”.
A long catena of decisions of this Court have
been noted by the High Court in the judgment
but we need not dilate thereon neither we even
wish to sound a contra note. In Ashok Kumar’s
case : AIR1987 SC 454 this Court however in no
uncertain terms observed: There can therefore
be no doubt that the viva voce test performs a
very useful function in assessing the personal
characteristics and traits and in fact tests the
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(32 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
man himself and is therefore regarded as an
important tool along with the written
examination
10. The situation envisaged by Chinnappa Reddy,
J. in Lila Dhar’s case [Lila Dhar v. State of
Rajasthan : (1981) IILLJ 297 SC] on which strong
reliance was placed is totally different from the
contextual facts and the reliance thereon is also
totally misplaced. Chinnappa Reddy, J. discussed
about the case of service to which recruitment
has necessarily been made from persons of
mature personality and it is in that perspective it
was held that “interview test may be the only
way subject to basic and essential academic
and professional requirements being
satisfied” The facts in the present context
deal be Block Development Officers at the
Panchayat level. Neither the job requires
mature personality nor the recruitment
should be on the basis of interview only,
having regard to the nature and
requirement of the concerned jobs. In any
event, the Service Commission itself has
recognised a written test as also viva voce test.
The issue therefore pertains as to whether on a
proper interpretation of the rules read with the
instructions note, the written examination can be
deemed to be a mere qualifying examination and
the appointment can only be given through viva
voce test-a plain reading of the same however
would negate the question as posed.”
(Emphasis laid)
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(33 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
23.3.6 Therefore, while considering the view that Hon'ble
Supreme Court has drawn over the years by a catena of judgments
it can be reckoned that an examination/selection/recruitment
authority while conducting a public examination has to maintain
utmost cautiousness while bifurcating the marks/percentage to
different levels/parts of examination i.e. written examination,
interview etc. and in zilch circumstances interview can be
considered the sole basis of selection. Nevertheless, Article 309 of
the Constitution of India explicitly ensures the fairness,
reasonableness, transparency and non-arbitrariness in the public
service/recruitment examinations. Moreover, to avoid superfluous
controversies and arbitrariness tape-recordings of the interviews
given by the candidates can be done. It is also noted that in the
public examinations which are conducted on PAN India basis for
instance UPSC-CSE, the viva voce tests have maximum 10-15%
weightage.
24. It is pertinent to note that the Chairman, RPSC in its
affidavit (Annexure-12) has admitted the fact that qua the
advertisement of Operation Therapist, 2022 and Hospital Care
Taker, 2022 which were notified vide advertisement dated
12.05.2022 and 23.05.2022 respectively, the directions spelled out
in the notification dated 23.05.2022 were made applicable.
Thence, the stance of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents that the said notification shall have only prospective
effect is extraneous.
25. Withal, it is a settled position of law that if the Cabinet
has taken a conscious decision with an objective that if the written
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(34 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
examination has to be followed by an interview, the said interview
shall only be of 10% of the total number of marks. Subsequently,
considering the vital aspects, the warranting circumstances, with
objective to maintain transparency in the public recruitments and
acting harmoniously with the judgments passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court over the years, the said condition was even
inculcated in the Rules of 1962 by way of a procedural amendment
of Rule 19. The Rules of 1962 regulate the recruitment to the posts
and conditions of service for the Rajasthan Medical Services and
the same are enforced and amended under the consent and
sanction of the Governor. It is a settled position of law that the
procedural laws are always retrospective in operation and create a
vested right; the Rules of 1962 are one of such procedural Rules.
Therefore, it is made unambiguous that the amendment to the
Rules of 1962 shall have a retrospective effect and therefore, the
said maximum 10% weightage to the interview, shall be made
applicable qua the instant selection process.
26. It is also noted that the respondents have wrongly
interpreted the judgment of Tejprakash (supra), as the act of
the respondents of flouting the governing statues itself depicts that
the respondents have changed the rules of the game. The same
can even be corroborated with the fact that the respondents in
other two examinations as mentioned above, have made applicable
the condition of notification dated 23.05.2022 and in the impugned
examination have adopted a deviated policy. Therefore, while
maintaining the judicial parity it can be noted that in the instant
matter also the respondents cannot change the rules of the game
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(35 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
during the currency of the selection process and undergo an
obsolete bifurcation that was adopted in the previous
advertisement (of the year 2019-20) violating the provisions of
Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962.
27. Consequently, it can be inferred that the instant petition
is not barred by the principle of delay and laches nor the
contentions of the respondents that the petitioner after attempting
the examination cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time
can be justified.
28. Sequentially, it is vital to note that the reliance placed
by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents upon the
dictum encapsulated in Madhya Pradesh Public Service
Commission (supra), A.P. Public Service Commission
(supra) and Khetan Prakash & Ors. (supra) are of
distinguishable factual and legal matrix for the following reasons:
28.1 That in the said judgments, the question of law
pertained qua the un-amended provisions of the Rule 19 of the
Rules of 1962.
28.2 That the petitioners in the relied upon judgments have
flunked and were unqualified whereas in the matter in hand the
petitioner had secured good merit and the instant petition is filed
assailing the excessive allocation of marks/percentage/weightage
to the interview sans considering the provisions of governing
statues.
29. This Court at this nascent juncture, upon considering
the unendurable circumstance that arose due to the arbitrary
action of the respondent-RPSC deems it apposite to place reliance
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(36 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]upon the ratio encapsulated in Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma
University of Health Sciences & Ors. reported in (2012) 7 SCC
389 and it can be articulated Asha (Supra), this Court is of the
view that the merit scored by the petitioners should be the
exclusive criteria for selection in public examinations, and in no
manner due to the technical formalities the fundamental rights of
the meritorious petitioner can be frustrated.
CONCLUSION
30. In precise it can be noted that, the impugned
advertisement did not specify the method of examination and the
bifurcation of marks; that the respondent-RPSC has acted dehors
the settled position of law, omitting to follow the judicial guidelines
as enunciated in the dictum of Ajay Hasia (supra), Ashok
Kumar Yadav (supra) and Praveen Singh (supra); that the
respondents have violated the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of
1962 and have wrongly interpreted the post-amended provisions of
the same; that as the amended in the Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962
was procedural in nature and the same was made in consonance of
the opinion formulated by the State Cabinet, the same shall have a
retrospective effect; that the respondents in subsequent selection
processes that was conducted for intake on the post of Operational
Therapists, 2022 and Hospital Caretaker, 2022 vide advertisements
dated 12.05.2022 and 23.05.2022 respectively, have applied the
retrospective operation of the notification dated 23.05.2022; that
the respondents have themselves admitted the fact (in the
affidavits) that they have implemented the obsolete conditions of
the previous advertisement to the instant advertisement changing
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(37 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
the rules of the game mid-way; that upon a perusal of the records
qua the erstwhile three recruitment processes it is observed that
the respondent-RPSC has neither followed the directives of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court nor have maintained the records in a
transparent and reasonable manner, moreover, the experts who
were a part of the interviewing board were addressed to as
“advisors or assistants”; that this Court while considering the
dictum passed in Asha (Supra) is of the view that the sole basis
of selection of a candidate in any selection process whether it be
any Medical College entrance examination or any public
recruitment examination shall only be the merit scored by the
candidate. The most efficacious way to examine the intelligence of
the candidate is a written examination accompanied by the
interview and in any circumstances the written examination cannot
be substituted by the interview.
31. Therefore, considering the aforementioned discussion
and findings; and acknowledging the crisis which prevail in the
medical fraternity this Court directs the respondents to conclude
the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated
27.11.2021 for the post of Assistant Professor in congruence with
the notification dated 23.05.2022, the amended Rule 19 of the
Rules of 1962 and the ratio spelled out in the judgments of Ajay
Hasia (supra) & Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra). The candidature
of the petitioner shall be considered conscientiously on the basis of
merit scored by her.
32. In light of the aforementioned findings and directions,
the instant petition is allowed. No orders as to costs. Stay
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
(38 of 38) [CW-15018/2024]
application and/or any other pending applications, also stand
disposed of.
33. The records that were called from the RPSC, be handed-
over to the concerned appropriate authority, following due
procedure. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to keep the photo-state
copy of the same for the purpose of records with the Court.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:57:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)