Petitioners challenging their non-selection for Primary Teacher post despite equal marks. Court examined RPSC criteria for tie-breaking based on age and academic qualifications, finding no illegality but dismissing due to non-rejoinder.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7527/2006
Pramod Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
Date of Order
::::
21.01.2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
None present for the petitioners. Mr. Shantanu Kumawat, for the respondent-Commission.
The petitioners having participated in the recruitment process in response to advertisement dated 2nd June, 2004 for consideration of their candidatures to the post of Primary Teacher, have approached this Court praying for the following relief(s):
“(i) That the respondent-State may be directed not to send requisition for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher till the petitioners are given appointment under the Primary Teachers Examination, 2004.
(ii) The RPSC may be directed not to advertise the post of Primary Teacher till the petitioners are appointed under the Primary Teachers Examination, 2004;
(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.”
2
is pleaded case of the petitioners that though name of the petitioners found place in the list of successful candidates in the result of Examination, 2004, the respondents recommended names of around 32,000 candidates, ignoring their claim. The petitioners have also detailed out, date of birth, percentage of marks secured, the category to which candidates belonged to and roll number of each of the candidate, as would be reflected from SCHEDULE-A, annexed to the writ application.
3
the Commission to meet out to such a situation, wherein a large number of candidates are available, who have secured equal marks. According to the criteria adopted by the Commission, the general suitability is determined with preference to a candidate of more/elder in age; having reference to academic qualification and whose marks are more in Senior Secondary and graduate course.
4
which reads thus:
“i) When two or more candidates having secured equal marks then preference is given to the candidate who is more/elder in age;
ii) When marks and age is equal then preference is given to the candidate whose academic qualification is higher:
iii) When marks, age and higher academic qualification are same then preference is given to the candidate whose marks are more in Sr. Secondary & Graduation course.
Commission in their counter affidavit, it is evident that there are number of candidates in each category securing equal
number of marks. The details reads thus:
“(Non T.S.P.Area)
| Category | Cut off marks last selected candidate |
Dt. Of Birth Marks |
No. of Equal non-selected candidates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gen(Male) | 134 | 16.06.1970 | 611 |
| (Women) | 124 | 19.5.1971 | 470 |
| OBC (Male) | 130 | 01.7.1979 | 243 |
| (Women) | 118 | 06.1.1978 | 270 |
| SC (Male) | 120 | 09.7.1979 | 288 |
| (Women) | 102 | 01.8.1978 | 93 |
| ST (Male) | 96 | 07.7.1973 | 93 |
| (Women) | 40 | 03.7.1978 | -- |
| -------------- | ----------------- | Total: ----------------------- |
2068 ------------------------ |
| (T.S.P. Area) | |||
| Category | Cut off marks last selected candidate |
Dt. Of Birth | No. of Equal Marks non-selected candidates |
| Banswara: | |||
| SC (Male) | 96 | 20.5.1975 | 03 |
| Udaipur: | |||
| SC (Male) | 108 | 06.1.1976 | 02 |
| (Women) | 94 | 14.3.1974 | 03 |
| Dungarpur: | |||
| SC(Male) | 102 | 10.3.1978 | 01 |
ST (Male) |
66 | 01.10.1965 | 09 |
| Sirohi: | |||
| SC (Male) -------------- |
104 ----------------- |
13.7.1969 ----------------------- Total:- |
01 ---------------------------- 19 |
5
Note: No Candidate having equal marks is available in other districts of T.S.P. Areas.
“I have considered the submissions made and with their assistance, examined material on record. Before examining controversy, it will be appropriate to refer the criteria adopted by the Commission. The same is quoted as under:-
i)When two or more candidates having secured equal marks then preference is given to the candidate who is more/elder in age;
ii)When marks and age is equal then preference is given to the candidate whose academic qualification is higher;
iii)When marks, age and higher academic qualification are same then preference is given to the candidate whose marks are more in Senior Secondary and Graduation course.
It is relevant to mention here that it has also been informed that the criteria, as referred above, has been finally upheld by the Division Bench of this court.
As per statement made available for perusal of this court, both the two persons, petitioner & last selected applicant in OBC category, secured 130 marks, their date of birth is 1.7.1979 and both were first division in Secondary, Senior Secondary & second division at the stage of graduation. Both are postgraduates & B.Ed. which is one of essential qualifications. But in B.Ed., the last selected applicant is Ist Divisioner whereas the petitioner indisputably is IInd Divisioner and on this premise, respondent-Commission determined their inter se merit.
6
According to the criteria quoted (supra), adopted by respondent Commission, if applicants secured equal marks, their inter se merit is to be determined as per their date of birth and if the date of birth is also common, then applicant having higher academic qualifications is to be considered and if that is also same then the third step of giving preference to the applicant having secured higher marks in Sr. Secondary & Graduation, is to be followed in descending order as per criteria noticed supra.”
7
15. Ordered accordingly.
there shall be no order as to costs.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J.
Pcg
All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed. P.C.Gupta, Sr.P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criteria adopted by the RPSC for selecting candidates with equal marks (age, educational qualification, marks in graduation) is legal and valid.
Whether the writ application suffers from non-rejoinder of necessary parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.Referred¶39
SBCWP No.6397/2006 (Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.)
Pramod Kumar Sharma & Ors.
State of Raj.
Respondent-Commission
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
