Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Hemendra Krishan And Ors vs Raj. Public Service Commission … on 19 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:9968]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2814/2015
Srichand Vyas And Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
R.p.s.c. And Anr.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7957/2014
Hemendra Krishan And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. Public Service Commission
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 507/2015
Brijendra Singh Ranawat
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. Public Service Commission
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Ranka for
Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh for Mr. Tarun Joshi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
19/02/2025
1. Vide instant order, the entire bunch of above numbered
petitions is being disposed of as same controversy is involved
therein. For the sake of brevity recitals are being taken from S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 2814/2015.
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:55:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9968] (2 of 5) [CW-2814/2015]
2. Petitioners herein, are before this Court, inter alia, seeking
issuance of appropriate writ, order and / or direction commanding
the respondents to consider their candidature on the post of
stenographers, while exempting the condition of securing 36% in
each paper of Phase-II pursuant to advertisement dated
06.09.2011.
3. Heard.
4. Essentially, the controversy raked up by the petitioners
herein is that once the process of selection had begun, the
selecting agency i.e. RPSC could not have imposed the condition
of obtaining minimum of 40% marks in each of the examination
papers in Phase-I followed by minimum of 36% marks in each of
the examination papers in Phase-II of the competitive
examination.
5. In fact this Court need not labour on the adjudication of the
matter all over again as the same is res integra in view of the
Single Bench judgment rendered in Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8979/2016 which
pertains to the same selection process as is the case herein,
relying upon Division Bench judgment in D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No.1379/2014 Saurabh Kumar Kothari & Ors. Vs. RPSC &
Ors. For ready reference, relevant of the judgment is reproduced
herein below:-
“It is not in dispute that as per the subsequent Notification dated
14.03.2016, the earlier Rules i.e. Rajasthan Subordinate Offices
Ministerial Services Rules, 1999 and Rajasthan Secretariat
Ministerial Services Rules, 1970 stood amended and as per the
amended Rules, a candidate is required to pass only one of the two
subjects i.e. either English or Hindi. The only dispute is as to
whether the amended Notification dated 14.03.2016 could be(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:55:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9968] (3 of 5) [CW-2814/2015]applied to the vacancies or the selections in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 06.09.2011.
It is a well settled proposition of law that eligibility and
qualifications have to be taken into consideration on the date the
vacancies occurred and not on any subsequent date as held by the
Apex Court in the case of Y.V. Rangaiah vs. I. Sreenivasa Rao
reported in AIR 1983 SC 852. Similarly as per the decision of the
Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. R. Dayal and Ors.
reported in JT 1997(3) SC 198, the post which fell vacant prior to
the amendment of the rules would be governed by the original
rules and not by amending rules. However, the above settled
proposition does not mean that the State Government cannot re-
call the requisition sent to the RPSC to select the candidates for
appointment in case the rules are amended meanwhile. This
proposition of law emerges from the fact that a candidate has no
right to claim that the selection process once started must be
completed and the State Government has the right to refuse the
appointment of a candidate duly selected by the RPSC. Hence,
there is no dispute with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Jai Singh Dalal and others Vs. State of Haryana and
another reported in 1993 AIR SCW 632 holding that :
“10. Assuming (without deciding) that the withdrawal
of the earlier notifications by the subsequent
notification dated December 30, 1991 does not, stricto
sensu, attract the provision of S. 19 extracted above,
counsel for the appellants overlooks the fact that since
the appellants have no legal right to insist on their
selection and appointment to the vacant posts in
question, the mode of arresting the process recedes in
the background as the State Government could have
informed the HPSC not to proceed with the selection
process as it desired to revise the norm for
appointment. Once it is realised that merely because
the State Government had sent a requisition to the
HPSC to select candidates for appointment did not
create any vested right in the candidates called for
interviews, regardless of the fact that the selection
process had reached an advanced stage, it does not
matter whether the selection process is arrested by
cancelling the earlier notifications by another
notification or by a mere communication addressed to
the HPSC. Even if the HPSC were to complete the
process and select candidates, such selection by itself
would not confer a right to appointment and the
Government may refuse to make the appointment for
valid reasons. At best the Government may be required
to justify its action on the touchstone of Art. 14 of the
Constitution.”
Similarly, in the case of Dr. P.K. Jaiswal Vs. Ms. Debi Mukherjee
and others reported in AIR 1992 Sc 749, it was held that the
Commission cannot insist on going ahead with selection as the
Government has withdrawn the advertisement on account of the
amendment of the recruitment rules.
In the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Arun Kumar
Aggarwal and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3262 as relied on
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:55:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9968] (4 of 5) [CW-2814/2015]
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court upheld
the decision of the Government to fill up the old vacancies as per
the new Rules on account of a conscious decision taken by the
Government.
However, the situation here is totally different. In the present case,
the selection is over. The RPSC had already recommended the
names and as per the Additional Affidavit filed by the State, the
RPSC had completed the entire process on 21.10.2014 and
declared 113 candidates to be successful. The recommendations
were duly sent to the State Government and the appointments have
already been granted. In these circumstances, no mandamus can
be issued to the State Government to apply the amended Rules to
an Advertisement of which the selection is over and the
appointments have already been made.
This Court may also note that number of writ petitions and
appeals [DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1379/2014 (Saurabh
Kumar Kothari & Others Vs. RPSC & Others] and other
connected matters were filed assailing the selection process for
the post of Lower Division Clerk and the validity of Proviso to
Rule 29 of the Rules of 1999 which envisages that only such of the
candidates could be recommended by the Commission who have
obtained a minimum of 40% marks in each of the paper of Phase-I
and a minimum of 36% marks in each of the paper of Phase-II of
the competitive examination as being unreasonable and had no
nexus with the object sought to be achieved. All the appeals
against the order of the learned Single Bench and the writ
petitions assailing the validity of Rule 29 were dismissed vide
order and judgment dated 03.02.2016 with the following
directions:
“The Commission is directed to prepare a fresh merit
list of all the candidates who have participated in the
combined competitive examination, 2011 held for the
post of Lower Division Clerk, pursuant to
advertisement dt.17.05.2011 and the corrigendums
issued in furtherance thereto and obtained a
minimum of 40% marks in each of the paper of
Phase-I and a minimum of 36% marks in each of the
paper of Phase-II of the competitive examination and
upload such fresh merit list on its official website and
after taking note of the objections, if any, within
seven days thereafter recommend the names of
successful candidates to the State Government
keeping in view their order of merit, as per the
number of advertised vacancies and the State
Government is directed to process the same thereafter
and give appointments to the selected candidates
after due compliance of the requirement of law & the
scheme of Rules. The process shall be completed
within 90 days. At the same time, State Government is
at liberty to cancel the appointments of such of the
candidates who failed to qualify with a minimum of
40% marks in each of the paper of Phase-I and a
minimum of 36% marks in each of the paper of
Phase-II or were not eligible to appear in Phase-II of
the competitive examination held for the post of
Lower Division Clerk under the scheme of -23-(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:55:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9968] (5 of 5) [CW-2814/2015]D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1379/2014 & 15
connected matters Rules, after due compliance & in
accordance with law.”
No doubt, the Government went ahead and amended the Rule 29
of the Rules of 1990 and the proviso to Rule 22 of the Rules of
1997, however, at the same time, no conscious decision has been
taken by the Government to apply the same to the selection
process in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 06.09.2011. In
fact, the amendment has come almost after the matter was put at
rest and the judgment dated 03.02.2016 passed in the case of
Saurabh Kumar Kothari & Others Vs. RPSC & Others (DB
Special Appeal (Writ) NO.1379/2014) attained finality qua the
selection in pursuance to this very advertisement in hand. Hence,
no mandamus can be issued directing the State Government to
apply the Rules amended vide Notification dated 14.03.2016 to the
selection process in pursuance to the Advertisement dated
06.09.2011.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions, being devoid of
merit, are dismissed accordingly.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
145 to 147-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:55:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
