Allowed

Anita Bareth v. R P S C Ajmer andORS

Rajasthan HC6 Sept 2016CW/7869/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged her exclusion from the merit list for the post of School Lecturer (Urdu) due to negative marks in the General Knowledge paper. The court set aside the exclusion order, directing the RPSC to consider her candidature based on overall marks as no rule mandated minimum marks per paper.

What did the court decide?

Impugned letter declaring petitioner ineligible is set aside; respondents directed to reconsider candidature based on overall marks.

Anita Bareth Vs R P S C Ajmer andORS — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7869/2015 Anita Bareth Vs. RPSC & Ors.

¶4

Date of Order ::: 06.09.2016

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶6

Mr. Vigyan Shah, for the petitioner. Mr. Devesh Chouhan for

¶7

Mr. SK Gupta, Additional Advocate General for the state.

¶8

Mr. MF Baig, for the respondents.

¶9

With consent of the parties, writ petition is heard finally.

¶10

A challenge is made to the letter dated 17.4.2015, whereby, exclusion of the petitioner from the merit list for the post of School Lecturer (Urdu) has been justified. It is for the reason that petitioner has secured negative marks in the paper of General Knowledge.

¶11

It is a case where an advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the “RPSC”) for the post of School Lecturer in different subjects. The petitioner applied for the post of School Lecturer (Urdu) and, accordingly, appeared for selection. She secured in all 168.5 marks. In the “Urdu” paper, petitioner secured 177.93 marks, however, in General Knowledge, she had

¶12

¶13

secured -9.42 marks i.e. in negative. In the advertisement, negative marking was permitted. The cut-off marks of SC (Female) is 73.36 marks, which is much below to the marks obtained by the petitioner. She has been held ineligible on the ground that marks in General Knowledge are in negative though neither the Rule nor the advertisement provide that one should have possessed minimum marks in each paper. The merit list was also prepared with cut-off marks by drawing aggregate marks of two papers.

¶14

Learned counsel for RPSC has admitted that if the petitioner would have secured zero or one mark in General Knowledge then she would have been placed in the merit list. The exclusion is on account of negative marking in the paper of General Knowledge though petitioner applied for the post of School Lecturer in 'Urdu' where she has secured higher marks as compared to others. According to learned counsel for RPSC, poor General Knowledge of a candidate makes him unfit for the post hence, exclusion of the petitioner from merit list is justified. This court finds that if the petitioner would have secured 0 or 1 marks in General Knowledge then could have

¶15

¶16

been placed in the merit but having secured negative marks, she has been excluded. The logic given by the learned counsel for the respondents is about poor knowledge of General Knowledge. It is, no doubt, true that negative marks exist in General Knowledge but overall marks of the petitioner are 168.5 and the Rule does not provide that one need to secure minimum or same marks in each paper. It does not provide even that candidate securing negative marks in any paper would be ineligible. In absence of any such Rule, what will prevail is the merit. The aggregate marks of two papers of the petitioner are quite high as compared to the cut-off marks.

¶17

In view of above, the order passed by the RPSC cannot be allowed to sustain in absence of any Rule to provide exclusion of those who secured negative marks in one paper out of two or, alternatively, to require zero or some marks in one paper out of two. The State Government can appropriately amend the Rules if they want that candidate should secure some marks in the each paper but till such amendment is made, the exclusion of any candidate on the ground taken by the RPSC cannot be said to be legal.

¶18

¶19

In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned letter issued by the respondents declaring the petitioner to be ineligible is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner after taking note of overall marks secured by her and be given appointment subject to any other eligibility.

¶20

The writ petition is allowed. The compliance of the order be made within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶21

sunita/33

Anita Bareth v. R P S C Ajmer andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Bareth v. R P S C Ajmer andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Chand Sharma Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Ram Swaroop Eniwal Vs State Education Departmentors

Hemant Kumar BAIRWAandORS Vs State Elementary Educationors

Mamta Das Vs State Education Departmentanr

Moti Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Meghraj Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp