Sahi Lal Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2022CW/12689/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed petitions challenging the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's recruitment method for Assistant Professor posts. The petitioners argued the selection process (written test + interview) conflicted with UGC Regulations 2018 (shortlist by scores, interview only). The Court held no irreconcilable conflict exists and dismissed the writs.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed with no order for costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sahi Lal Vishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶51

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Nikhil Jain,Mr. Nihar Jain
For Respondent(s)-	: Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
State	Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG Mr. Kailash Choudhary, Mr. Rajat Arora
For Respondent- RPSC	: Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit

¶93

S.N .	Academic Record		Sco	re
1.	Graduation	80% & Above =21	60% to less than 80% = 19	55% to less than 60% = 16	45% to less than 55% = 10
2.	Post-Graduation	80% & Above =25	60% to less than 80% = 23	55% (50% SC/ST/OBC creamy laye to less than 20	in case of (non- r)/PWD) 60% =
3.	M.Phil	60% & above=07	55% to less	than 60%	= 05
4.	Ph.D.	25
5.	NET with JRF	10
	NET	08
	SLET/SET	05
6.	Research Publications (2 marks for each research publications published in Peer-Reviewed or UGC- listed Journals)	06
7.	Teaching/Post Doctoral Experience (2 marks for one year each)#	10
8.	Awards
	International/National Level (Awards given by International Organisations/ Government of India/Government of India recognised National Level bodies)	03
	State-Level (Awards given by State Government)	02

(A) (i)	M.Phil.+ Ph.D.	Maximum	- 25 Marks
(ii)	JRF/NET/SET	Maximum	- 10 Marks
(iii)	In awards category	Maximum	- 03 Marks”

¶107

Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India a little later. But we cannot agree with the observations made in that judgment to the effect that the process of selection of candidates for admission to medical college has no real impact on the standard of medical education; or that the standard of medical education really comes into the picture only in the course of studies in the medical colleges or institutions after the selection and admission of candidates. For reasons which we have explained earlier, the criteria for the selection of candidates have an important bearing on the standard of education which can be effectively imparted in the medical colleges. We cannot agree with the proposition that prescribing no minimum qualifying marks for admission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes would not have an impact on the standard of education in the medical colleges. Of course, once the minimum standards are laid down by the authority having the power to do so, any further qualifications laid down by the State which will lead to the selection of better students cannot be challenged on the ground that it is contrary to what has been laid down by the authority concerned. But the action of the State is valid because it does not adversely impinge on the standards prescribed by the appropriate authority. Although this judgment is referred to in the Constitution Bench judgment of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the question of standards being lowered at the stage of post-graduate medical admissions was not before the Court for consideration. The Court merely said that since Article 16 was not applicable to the facts in Kumari Nivedita Jain's case Article 335 was not considered there. Fort post-graduate medical education, where the "students" are required to discharge duties as doctors in hospitals, some of the considerations underlying Articles 16 and 335 would be relevant as hereinafter set out. But that apart, it cannot be said that the judgment in Nivedita Jain is approved in all its aspects by Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.”

¶128

133. The distinction between the first test on the one hand with the second and third tests on the other lies in the fact that the first is grounded in an irreconcilable conflict between the provisions of the two statutes each of which operates in the Concurrent List. The conflict between the two statutes gives rise to a repugnancy, the consequence of which is that the State legislation will be void to the extent of the repugnancy. The expression 'to the extent of the repugnancy' postulates that those elements or portions of the state law which run into conflict with the central legislation shall be excised on the ground that they are void. The second and third tests, on the other hand, are not grounded in a conflict borne out of a comparative evaluation of the text of the two provisions. Where a law enacted by Parliament is an exhaustive Code, the second test may come into being. The intent of Parliament in enacting an exhaustive Code on a subject in the Concurrent List may well be to promote uniformity and standardization of its legislative scheme as a matter of public interest. Parliament in a given case may intend to secure the protection of vital interests which require a uniformity of law and a consistency of its application all over the country. A uniform national legislation is considered necessary by Parliament in many cases to prevent vulnerabilities of a segment of society being exploited by an asymmetry of information and unequal power in a societal context. The exhaustive nature of the Parliamentary code is then an indicator of the exercise of the State's power to legislate being repugnant on the same subject. The third test of repugnancy may arise where both the Parliament and the State legislation cover the same subject matter. Allowing the exercise of power over the same subject matter would trigger the application of the concept of repugnancy. This may implicate the doctrine of implied repeal in that the State legislation cannot co-exist with a legislation enacted by Parliament. But even here if the legislation by the State covers distinct subject matters, no repugnancy would exist. In deciding whether a case of repugnancy arises on the application of the second and third tests, both the text and the context of the Parliamentary legislation have to be borne in mind. The nature of the subject matter which is legislated upon, the purpose of the legislation, the rights which are sought to be protected, the legislative history and the nature and ambit of the statutory provisions are among the factors that provide guidance in the exercise of judicial review.

¶131

The text of the statute would indicate whether Parliament contemplated the existence of State legislation on the subject within the ambit of the Concurrent List. Often times, a legislative draftsperson may utilize either of both of two legislative techniques. The draftsperson may provide that the Parliamentary law shall have overriding force and effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force. Such a provision is indicative of a Parliamentary intent to override anything inconsistent or in conflict with its provisions. The Parliamentary legislation may also stipulate that its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of other laws. Those other laws may be specifically referred to by name, in which event this is an indication that the operation of those specifically named laws is not to be affected. Such a legislative device is often adopted by Parliament by saving the operation of other Parliamentary legislation which is specifically named. When such a provision is utilized, it is an indicator of Parliament intending to allow the specific legislation which is enlisted or enumerated to exist unaffected by a subsequent law. Alternatively, Parliament may provide that its legislation shall be in addition to and not in derogation of other laws or of remedies, without specifically elucidating specifically any other legislation. In such cases where the competent legislation has been enacted by the same legislature, techniques such as a harmonious construction can be resorted to in order to ensure that the operation of both the statutes can co-exist. Where, however, the competing statutes are not of the same legislature, it then becomes necessary to apply the concept of repugnancy, bearing in mind the intent of Parliament. The primary effort in the exercise of judicial review must be an endeavour to harmonise. Repugnancy in other words is not an option of first choice but something which can be drawn where a clear case based on the application of one of the three tests arises for determination.”

Sahi Lal Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Triveni Kumari W/O Mahesh Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Rafiq Mohammad S/O Late Shri Babu Khan

State of Rajasthan Vs Ramesh Goswami S/O Shri Sanjay Goswami

Sahi Lal Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Triveni Kumari W/O Mahesh Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Rafiq Mohammad S/O Late Shri Babu Khan

State of Rajasthan Vs Ramesh Goswami S/O Shri Sanjay Goswami

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Coram