Dismissed

Parikshita Detha v. State Law Departmentanr

Rajasthan HC21 May 2014CW/5608/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The D.B. dismissed a writ petition challenging a note appended to a recruitment advertisement for Civil Judges. The note required final-year LL.B. candidates to produce proof of passing before appearing in the main examination. The bench held the relaxation was permissible for applying but strictly enforceable for the main exam, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the note and the communication denying provisional appearance was dismissed for lack of merit.

Parikshita Detha Vs State Law Departmentanr — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

{1} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5608/2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5608/ 2014

¶5

PARIKSHITA DETHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

¶6

DATE:21.05.2014

¶7

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶8

Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for the petitioners. *****

¶9

BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :

¶10

The challenge has been laid in the instant petition to the validity of the note, appended to clause-7 of the advertisement dated 25.11.2013, issued by the Registrar(Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, initiating a process for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, in terms of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (as amended) (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Annulment of the communication dated 01.05.2014 of the Registrar(Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, declining to permit the petitioner herein from appearing in the main examination provisionally for her failure to submit the proof of passing the LL.B. Final Year Examination, has also been sought for.

¶11

We have heard Mr. S.N. Kumawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

{2} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5608/2014

¶13

The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that she belongs to the OBC category and is a student of final year LL.B. (Professional) Course. In response to the aforementioned advertisement, she offered her candidature and was admitted to the preliminary examination, held on 23.03.2014. In the results declared on 08.04.2014, the cut-off marks of OBC Female category candidates was fixed as 72. She, however, had secured 85 marks and was thus eligible to take the main examination. According to her, she was informed thereafter to submit her mark-sheet of LL.B. Final Year Examination, whereupon she addressed a letter to the respondent No.2 requesting him to permit her to appear in the main examination, provisionally, as LL.B. Final Year Examination has not been held. As the request of the petitioner was declined by the Registrar(Examination), Rajasthan High Court, vide e- mail dated 01.05.2014, she has turned to this Court for judicial intervention.

¶14

Mr. Kumawat has emphatically argued that the requirement contained in the note appended to clause-7 of the advertisement, insisting on the production of proof of passing final year LL.B. Examination, being dehors the Rules, is nonest. He urged that such a stipulation not being prescribed by the Rules, the respondents could neither have incorporated it in the said advertisement, nor acted upon it to deny a successful candidate in the preliminary examination to appear in the main examination. Referring to Rule 20(3) and Rule 24, in particular, the learned counsel has argued that as the suitability of a

¶15

{3} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5608/2014

¶16

candidate, to be recruited to the service, has to be adjudged strictly in accordance with the scheme of the examination and his/ her performance on the basis of his/ her aggregate marks in the main written examination and interview, the impugned action of the respondents in ousting the petitioner from the process in the manner proposed, is grossly illegal, arbitrary, null and void.

¶17

We have analyzed the pleaded facts and the documents on record as well as the arguments advanced.

¶18

That the ongoing process of recruitment is governed by the Rules, is an admitted fact. Rule 18, 20 and 24 of the Rules, being relevant, are quoted hereunder for ready reference:-

¶19

“ 18. Academic qualifications .-. (1) No candidate shall be eligible for recruitment to theService unless he holds a degree of Bachelor of Laws (Professional) of any University established by Law in India and recognised as such under the Advocates Act,1961.

¶20

(2) Every candidate must possess a thorough knowledge of Hindi Written in Devnagari script and Rajasthani dialects and social customs of Rajasthan.

¶21

Scheme of Examination and Syllabus - (1) The competitive examination for the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge shall be conducted by the Recruiting Authority in two stages i.e. preliminary examination and Main examination as per the Scheme specified in Schedule-IV. The marks obtained in the preliminary Examination by the candidate who are declared qualified for admission to the main examination will not be counted for determining their final merit.

¶22

(2) The number of candidate to be admitted to the main examination will be fifteen times the total number of vacancies (Category wise) to be filled in the year but in the said range all those candidates

¶23

{4} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5608/2014

¶24

who secure the same percentage of marks as may be fixed by the Recruiting Authority for any lower range will be admitted to the Main Examination. (@Subst it ut ed)

¶25

(3) On the basis of marks secured in Main Examination, candidates to the extent of three times of total number of vacancies (Category wise) shall be declared qualified to be called for interview.

¶26

(4) The Recruiting Authority shall not recommended a candidate who has failed to appear, in any of the written paper or before the Board for Viva Voce.

¶27

(5) Syllabus shall be such as may be prescribed by the Recruiting Authority from time to time. (@Subst it ut ed)

¶28

Provided the same may be amended by the Governor from time to time in consultation with the Court.

¶29

24. List of candidat es recommended by t he Recruit ing Aut horit y.- The Recruit ing Authority shall prepare a list of the candidates in the order of their performance on the basis of their aggregate marks. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the Recruiting Authority shall arrange them in the order of merit on the basis oftheir general suitability for service and recommend their names to the Appointing Authority for appointment to the Cadre of Civil Judge:

¶30

Provided that the Recruiting Authority shall not recommend a candidate of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes category unless he obtains minimum 35% marks in the aggregate of written examination and the interview , and, in the case of other candidates, unless he obtains minimum 40% marks in the aggregate of written examination and the interview.

¶31

Provided further that no candidate shall be recommended who fails to obtain minimum 25% marks in the interview. **_(Insert ed)”_*

¶32

{5} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5608/2014

¶33

A plain perusal of the provisions of the Rules, quoted

¶34

hereinabove, would unequivocally demonstrate that a degree of Bachelor of Laws (Professional) of any University established by Law in India and recognised as such under the Advocates Act, 1961, is an essential and indispensable condition of eligibility for a candidate, to be recruited to the post involved. The scheme of the examination encompasses competition examination in two stages i.e. preliminary examination and main examination, as set out in Schedule-IV. The number of candidates to be admitted to the main examination would be fifteen times the total number of vacancies (Category wise) to be filled in the year but in the said range, all those candidates who secure the same percentage of marks as may be fixed by the Recruiting Authority for any lower range would be admitted as well. In terms of Rule 20(3) of the Rules, on the basis of marks secured in Main Examination, candidates to the extent of three times of total number of vacancies (Category wise) would be declared qualified to be called for interview and eventually the Recruiting Authority would prepare a list of the candidates in the order of their performance on the basis of their aggregate marks, whereafter they would be arranged in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for service and would be recommended to the Appointing Authority for recruitment to the post.

¶35

Clause-7 with the impugned note appended to, is also

¶36

extracted hereunder:-

¶37

" शै् ष िणक योग ् यता :-

¶38

{6} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5608/2014

¶39

कोई भी अ�यथर ् सेवा म� भतर ् क िलए तब तक पा् े े ऴ नहीं होगा जब तक िक वह भारत म� िविध ् ष ारा �थािपत तथा ा अिधिनयम ,1961 क अधीन इस �प म� मा�य े े

¶40

अिधव् व िकसी भी िव�िव् य ालय की िविध �नातक ( �यावसाियक ) की उपािध धािरत ना करता हो।

¶41

(No Candidate shall be eligible for recruitment to the service unless he holds a degree of Bachelor of Laws(Professional) of any University established by law in India and recognised as such under the Advocates act, 1961)

¶42

2.्ऺ �य ्ऺ ेक अ�यथर ् को देवनागरी िलिप म� िलखी जाने वाली िह�दी भाषा तथा राज�थानी बोिलय� एवं सामािजक �िढय� ( रीित - िरवाज ) (Rajasthan dialects and social ान रखने customs of Rajasthan) का पूणर ् (Thorough)ञ ् वाला होना चािहए।

¶43

नोट :- िविध �नातक ( �यावसाियक ) LL.B. अथा ् त र (Professional) अि�तम वष ् की परी्र ष ा म सि�मिलत हो� चुका या सि�मिलत हो रहा आवदक भी आवे दन करने के े े िलए पा् ऴ ह ल� िकन उसे मुखे ् य िलिखत परी् ष ा म सि�मिलत� (Proof) होन से पूवे ् उ्र व परी् ष ा उ�ीण ् कर लर ने का े ्ऺ माण ्ऺ दना होगा।े ”

¶44

While the text of clause-7 replicates the prescription of

¶45

academic qualifications, as contained in Rule 18 of the Rules, in terms of the note, a candidate who had already appeared in the final year of LL.B. (Professional) Examination or is going to appear in such examination, was also eligible to apply, subject to the production of proof of passing the same before sitting in the main examination for recruitment. Having regard to the scheme outlined, amongst others, by Rule 18, 20 and 24 of the Rules, adverted to hereinabove, it is more than

¶46

{7} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5608/2014

¶47

apparent that the note appended to clause-7 is by way of relaxation of the rigor of the insistence of the academic qualification prescribed, on the date of application by a candidate offering his/ her candidature with the clear rider that a candidate who either had appeared in the final year LL.B.(Professional) Examination, or is going to so appear, would have to produce the proof of having passed the said examination before participating in the main examination under the Rules. In view of the statutorily prescribed academic qualification, the enjoinment of production of the proof of passing the final year LL.B. (Professional) Examination before the main examination in the recruitment process cannot be repudiated to be incompetent, illegal or in violation of the Rules.

¶48

Noticeably, the stipulation was incorporated to ensure wider range of participation of the candidates. However, having regard to the academic qualification enjoined by the Rules, there could not have been any kind of relaxation with regard thereto after a particular stage in the recruitment process. The preliminary examination being a method essentially to shortlist the candidates for the main examination, the relaxation of the kind, as contained in the note, though permissible, in our comprehension, the benefit thereof could, by no means, be extended to permit participation in the main examination. Not only the plea that the note is repugnant to the Rules is visibly untenable, the same cannot be construed to signify that it could be made pliable to any extent to meet the suitability and convenience of the candidates catering to all

¶49

{8} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5608/2014

¶50

kind of circumstances to their advantage. This, in our estimate, if permitted, would undermine the legality and sanctity of the process undertaken under the Rules. The impeachment of the note, appended to clause-7, on the touchstone of the Rules, thus cannot be sustained. The reply to the petitioner's request made on 01.05.2014 by the Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, thus, also cannot be repudiated to be illegal or in contravention of the Rules. The petition, thus, lacks in merit and is dismissed.

¶51

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.
/ KKC/
Certificate:

¶52

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed. KAMLESH KUMAR P.A.

Parikshita Detha v. State Law Departmentanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parikshita Detha v. State Law Departmentanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Singh Khurant Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Nikita Gupta Vs Raj High Court and Anr.

State of Raj. through P.K. Agrawal,Rhjs Vs Rajendra Sharma Editor Dainik Bhaskar

Ajay Yadav Vs Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Ors.

Meera Bai Vs High Court of Judicature

Dr Arti Mathur and Anr. Vs State Education Departmentors