Petitioner challenged non-cricket-ing marks in Rajasthan PSC selection via writ. Court declined direct intervention but directed RPSC to issue a speaking order resolving the grievance within four weeks.
Direction to RPSC to decide the grievance via a speaking order and communicate it to the petitioner within four weeks.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18117 / 2017
Mukesh Kumari Yadav D/o Mina Ram Yadav, Cast Ahir, Aged About 39 Years, R/o J-52, Krishna Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj) 202001
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.R. Yadav Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 23/10/2017
The petitioner has participated in the selection process for the post of Rajasthan Administrative & Subordinate Services which was initiated in the year 2013. The petitioner has appeared in the interview after qualifying in the Main-Examination and she has secured 418 marks.
The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is in respect of re-examination/re-evaluation of certain questions.
As per the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has not given the correct marks to the petitioner and there has been total failure while evaluating the answers of the petitioner in respect of Question No. 21 (2), Unit 1, part C; Question No. 9, Unit 1, part A and Question No. 4 Unit 2, part A.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
(2 of 2)
[CW-18117/2017]
representation was filed before the RPSC on 13th September, 2017, for redressal of the grievance. The petitioner had further served a notice for demand of justice dt. 22nd September, 2017 to the RPSC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the RPSC has not responded at all and grievance of the petitioner remains unattended.
Counsel for the petitioner furhter submits that the bare perusal of the answers which have been given by the petitioner, from the answer-sheets placed on record in the writ petition, clearly demonstrate that evaluation of the marks have not been done properly.
This Court is of the opinion that the prayer sought by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be granted, to direct the RPSC to re-evaluate the answers of the petitioner in a particular manner. However, if the petitioner has approached the respondent-RPSC by raising a grievance, it is expected from the RPSC that they should decide the matter and take a final view about grievance raised by the petitioner.
This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the RPSC to take a final view with regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner in her representation and a speaking order should be passed by communicating the same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR)J.
Monika/133
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to mandate a specific manner of re-evaluation by the RPSC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukesh Kumari Yadav
State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Personnel
Secretary Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Ashok Kumar Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
