LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, September 30, 2011

service matter =The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, first respondent holds examinations for direct recruitment to State and subordinate service posts under the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules 1962 (`Rules’ for short). Appellant appeared as an `open market candidate’ in the 1983 examination and was selected to Rajasthan Tehsildar Services (Subordinate service) and = Sub-rule 1 of Rule 11 of Rules provided that the number of chances which a candidate appearing at the examinations can avail of, shall be restricted to three, for direct recruitment to posts specified in Schedules I and II of the Rules. The said rule was amended by notification dated 30.3.1990 whereby the ceiling in regard to the number of chances to appear in the examination was relaxed by increasing it from 3 to 4 examinations.= Having regard to the bar contained in Rule 4(2)(v), the appellant could not have appeared for the examination for the year 1990, as an NGE candidate, as by then he had appeared only thrice as an open market candidate and had not exhausted all the four chances as an open market candidate.


                                                                        Not Reportable 




                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA




                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8399 OF 2011


                     [Arising out of SLP [C] No.27941/2008]








Ashok Kumar Jain                                                     ... Appellant




Vs.




Rajasthan Public Service Commission


Through its Chairman & Ors.                                          ... Respondents










                                  J U D G M E N T










R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 








       Leave granted.




2.     The   Rajasthan   Public   Service   Commission,   first   respondent   holds 




examinations   for   direct   recruitment   to   State   and   subordinate   service   posts 




under the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by 




Combined   Competitive   Examinations)   Rules   1962   (`Rules'   for   short). 




Appellant appeared as an `open market candidate' in the 1983 examination 




and was selected to Rajasthan Tehsildar Services (Subordinate service) and 



                                              2






was appointed as a Naib Tehsildar, a non-gazetted post on 15.10.1985. The 




appellant   also   appeared   in   the   combined   competitive   examination   held   in 




1987 and 1989 as an open market candidate. The examination for the year 




1990   was   held   in   two   stages   on   25.11.1990   and   22.2.1992.   The   appellant 




appeared   in   the   said   examination   as   an   open   market   candidate   and   was 




unsuccessful.








3.     The   appellant   again   applied   for   the   combined   competitive 




examination for the year 1991, advertised on 19.10.1991. The appellant was 




provisionally allowed to appear in the said examination. On scrutiny of his 




application it was found that appellant had already availed four chances as 




an   open   market   candidate   in   the   examinations   relating   to   the   years   1983, 




1987, 1989 and 1990 and he was not therefore entitled to appear for the fifth  




time, as the maximum number of chances for a candidate under the Rules 




was four. He could not also be considered as a candidate in the examination  




for the year 1991 under the Non-Gazetted Employees quota (for short `NGE 




quota'),   as   appellant   was   working   as   a   Tehsildar,   a   Gazetted   post,   from 




December 1990. Therefore a notice dated 25.6.1993 was issued calling upon 




him to show cause why his application should not be rejected on the ground  




that   he   was   not   entitled   to   participate   in   the   combined   competitive  




examination for the fifth time.   



                                                      3






4.     The   appellant   had   by   then   appeared   in   the   written   examination   in 




pursuance   of   the   provisional   permission   and   had   succeeded   in   the   written 




examination. Being aggrieved by the action proposed to deny him the right 




to participate in the examination process, the appellant filed a writ petition 




for quashing the show cause notice dated 25.6.1993 and sought a direction to 




respondents to permit him to appear in the interview. During the pendency 




of the said  writ petition, he was promoted  as a Tahsildar on a substantive  




basis,   vide   order   dated   24.8.1996,   with   effect   from   26.11.1993.   The   writ 




petition was heard nearly thirteen years later and a learned Single Judge of 




the High Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 31.5.2006 holding 




as under : 




       "In the present case, when the last date of receipt of the application forms 


       was extended by RPSC in keeping with the principles of fair play and with 


       a view to providing opportunities to all eligible candidates the contention 


       of the petitioner that the amended rule 11(1) was applied retrospectively 


       cannot   be   accepted.   Even   otherwise   eligible   criteria   is   required   to   be 


       applied   with   reference   to   the   last   date   appointed   by   the   competent 


       authority for receipt of application forms. The amendment in Rule 11(1) 


       having   been   made   much   before   the   last   date   of   submission   of   the 


       application forms, all eligible candidates stood duly notified by the RPSC  


       by issuing a corrigendum.  For these reasons it can also be accepted that 


       the amended rules were applied retrospectively so as to defeat the claim of 


       any eligible candidate. As per scheme envisaged in Rule 4 of 1962  Rules,  


       candidate   can   be   held   eligible   against   the   quota   of   NGE   only   if   he   has 


       exhausted all the chance to appear in the examination as an open market 


       candidate. In my view, the action of RPSC in not permitting the petitioner 


       to appear against the NGE quota in the year 1990 did not suffer from any 


       legal infirmity and therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed one more 


       chance as a general candidate in the combined competitive examination of 


       the year 1992 as a general candidate and had ceased to be a non-gazetted 


       employee   having   been   promoted   to   the   post   of   Tehsildar   which   is   a 


       gazetted post. 



                                                   4






5.     The appellant challenged the said order in a civil special appeal and 




the   division   bench   dismissed   the   appeal  in   limine,  by   the   impugned   order 




dated 5.4.2007,  on the following reasoning: 




       "As to whether the petitioner was working as Tehsildar on ad hoc basis, 


       temporary   basis   or   substantively   is   not   material   for   the   purpose   of 


       consideration of the eligibility of the petitioner for combined competitive 


       examination to find out as to whether he could apply in the category on 


       non-gazetted employees. On the date of the application dated 18.1.1990, 


       the petitioner was working as Tehsildar and that he has been working as 


       Tehsildar   since   15.10.1985   surely,   therefore,   his   candidature   in   the 


       category   of   non-gazetted   employees   could   not   have   been   considered. 


       Thus,   when   Rule   4   of   the   Combined   Competitive   Examination   was 


       amended on 20.3.1990 and the employees were allowed to avail of more 


       than   three   chances,   the   application   made   by  the   petitioner   on  18.1.1990 


       could   only   have   been   considered   in   the   open   category   and   not   in   the 


       category of non-gazetted employees".










6.     The   said   order   is   challenged   in   this   appeal   by   special   leave.   The 




appellant contends that he was appointed as a non-gazetted Naib Tehsildar 




and worked as Naib Tehsildar upto 1990, that thereafter he was temporarily 




promoted   as   Tehsildar,   and   that   only   on   24.8.1996,   he   was   promoted   on 




substantive   basis   with   retrospective   effect,   and   therefore   he   could   not   be 




considered as working as a Gazetted Officer till 1996. He contends that his 




attempts in 1983, 1987 and 1989 were as an open market candidate, but his 




application in regard to the examination for the year 1990, should be treated  




as   being   in   the   NGE   category   and   not   as   an   open   market   candidate.   He 




therefore contended that he still had one more chance (fourth chance) as a 




general category candidate under the Rules when he appeared for the fifth 



                                                5






time in the examination for the year 1991 and therefore his participation was 




valid.










7.        The question therefore is whether the appellant's participation in the 




examination for the year 1991 should be considered as the fourth attempt as 




an open market candidate (in which event, he was entitled to participate) or 




as the fifth attempt as an open market candidate (in which event, he was not 




entitled to participate). This in turn requires consideration as to whether he 




appeared   as   an   open   market   candidate   or   as   an   NGE   candidate,   when   he 




appeared in the examinations for the year 1990.










8.        Sub-rule 1 of Rule 11 of Rules provided that the number of chances 




which   a   candidate   appearing   at   the   examinations   can   avail   of,   shall   be 




restricted to three, for direct recruitment to posts specified in Schedules I and 




II of the Rules. The said rule was amended by notification dated 30.3.1990 




whereby   the   ceiling   in   regard   to   the   number   of   chances   to   appear   in   the 




examination was relaxed by increasing it from 3 to 4 examinations. Rule 4 




(1)   of   the   Rules   provides   that   7%   of   the   available   vacancies   in   the   state 




services to be filled by direct recruitment shall, subject to the provisions of 




sub-rule (2), be reserved for candidates who are non-gazetted employees of 



                                                6






the   government,   Panchayat   Samitis   and   Zila   Parishads.   Sub-rule   (2)   of 




Rule 4 prescribed the eligibility conditions for the non-gazetted employees 




to   participate   in   the   combined   competitive   examination.   One   of   the   five 




conditions   of   eligibility   for   a   non-gazetted   employee   to   appear   in   the 




combined competitive examination is that he must not be eligible to appear 




in the examination as an open market candidate (vide clause (v) of Rule 4(2)  




of the Rules). This would mean that unless a NGE candidate has exhausted 




all four chances as an open market candidate, he cannot appear as an NGE 




candidate.









9.      It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   appellant   appeared   as   an   open   market 




candidate   in   the   years   1983,   1987   and   1989.   He   also   appeared   in   the 




examination   for   the   year   1990.   While   the   appellant   contends   that   his 




appearance   in   the   examination   for   1990   was   as   an   NGE   candidate,   the 




respondents   contend   that   his   said   appearance   was   as   an   open   market 




candidate   for   the   fourth   time.   Having   regard   to   the   bar   contained   in   Rule  




4(2)(v), the appellant could not have appeared  for the examination  for the 




year 1990, as an NGE candidate, as by then he had appeared only thrice as 




an open market candidate and had not exhausted all the four chances as an 




open   market   candidate.   Therefore,   the   appearance   of   appellant   in   the 



                                               7






examination for the year 1990 was as an open market candidate. If that is so, 




having exhausted all four chances as an open market, he could not appear in 




the examination for 1991 as an open market candidate.  The appellant could 




not also be considered as an NGE candidate in regard to the examination for 




the year 1991, as by then he was working as a Tehsildar and was no longer a 




non-gazetted   employee.   Therefore,   the   appellant   was   not   entitled   to 




participate in the examination for the year 1991. 










10.    In   view   of   the   above   there   is   no   merit   in   the   appeal   and   it   is 




accordingly dismissed.










                                                        ................................J.


                                                        (R.V. Raveendran)










New Delhi;                                              .............................J.


September 30, 2011.                                     (H.L. Gokhale)