RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER & ANR. versus SHIKUN RAM FIRODA & ANR. on 25 October 2019

Conclusion

1. The challenge in these appeals is to an order passed by theDivision Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpuron 26[th] May, 2017, which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos.8148-8149 of 2019 and the orders passed on different dates followingEthe said order.

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are that anadvertisement was published on 18[th] June, 2013 inviting applications forvarious posts in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services under theRajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment byFCombined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999[1]. Number of postsadvertised were 233 in the State Services and 490 in the SubordinateServices. A corrigendum was issued on 24[th] June, 2013 increasing numberof posts to 990. It was on 10[th] July, 2014, a Press Note was issuedcancelling the examination on account of certain irregularities whichGcame to the notice of the Commission. On 12[th] November, 2014, anotherPress Note was issued, which has led to the present set of appeals. ThePress Note gave an opportunity to the candidates to make corrections intheir online application forms and change of category after payment ofRs.100/-. The said Press Note reads as under:

H1 for short, ‘Rules’

“

“PRESS NOTE”

That, an opportunity is given to the applicants, who have appliedonline for recruitment of Rajasthan Subordinate Service 2013 tocorrect the mistakes category change or make any otheramendment in their application forms online.

The amendments can be done by paying Rs.100/- through e-mitra/online Banking. The correction/ amendment can be done onlineon the website of the commission i.e. rpconline.rajasthan.gov.infrom 13.11.2014 to 28.11.2014 (till midnight 12:00). Any writtenapplication for correction will not be accepted. Application forcorrection will not be accepted by the Commission after due date.

(N.K. Thakral)Secretary”

3. The last date of submission of application forms was 31[st] July,2013 and the preliminary examination was conducted on 26[th] October,2013. The respondents, who shall hereinafter be called as writ petitioners,were serving in the Army on the last date of submission of applicationform as also on the date on which preliminary examination was held on26[th] October, 2013. Laxman Singh, one of the writ petitioners, retired on31[st] July, 2014 but applied for change of status from General Categoryto Ex-servicemen Category in pursuance of the Press Note dated 12[th]November, 2014. Since, such change was not accepted, writ petitionswere filed. Writ petition filed by Laxman Singh was dismissed by thelearned Single Bench on 9[th] November, 2016 holding as under:

“It is admitted fact that on 31.07.2013 which was last date ofsubmission of application form petitioner was not Ex-servicemenand could only be treated in the category of OBC. Therefore, on31.07.2013, petitioner was not Ex-servicemen, he cannot beconsidered as such. Therefore, action of the respondent to rejectthe candidature of the petitioner under the Ex-servicemen categorycannot be faulted with. However, the petitioner be considered asper the merit list under the category of OBC.”

4. Such order was set aside in appeal on 26[th] May, 2017, interalia, on the ground that the Press Note has the effect of shifting thedate of eligibility. It was held as under:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“The view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugneddecision that the two had yet to acquire the status of Ex-servicemenby the last date for filling the applications pursuant to theadvertisement dated June 18, 2013, has overlooked the fact thaton November 12, 2014 another advertisement was issued whichBwould have the effect of shifting the date of eligibility normsacquiring to November 28, 2014.”5. It is the said order or the orders following the said order are thesubject matter of challenge in the present set of appeals.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission arguedCthat the Press Note was issued giving an opportunity to the candidatesto correct the mistakes consequent to cancellation of online examinationprocess. The permissible corrections which can be made were categorychange i.e. from General to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OtherBackward Classes, Ex-servicemen or vice-versa but a candidate whoDwas not eligible on the last date of submission of application forms cannotbe treated to be eligible only because the candidates were permitted tocorrect the mistakes and update their categories. It is argued that theDivision Bench of the High Court was not justified in holding that thedate of eligibility stand shifted in terms of the Press Note. It is furtherargued that the Press Note was not to invite fresh applications but onlyEto make corrections in the application forms already submitted.Therefore, a candidate who is not eligible on the last date of submissionof application cannot be treated to be eligible in the category of Ex-servicemen when the writ petitioners were in active service on the lastdate of submission of application forms.F

7. Learned counsel for the respondents have referred to anamendment in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-servicemen) Rules, 1988, wherein Rule 6B has been inserted on 21[st]May, 2019. The amendment makes a candidate eligible to apply in thecategory of Ex-servicemen who is retiring within forthcoming one year.GThus, it is contended that the intention of the Public Service Commissionand the State when Press Note was issued was to provide an opportunityto the members of the Army who were retiring in the near future tocompete for State Civil Services.

8. We find merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel forthe appellants. The Press Note was issued only to allow the correctionsH

or to change category in the application forms already submitted online.Press Note was not issued for giving an opportunity to the candidates toapply afresh. Therefore, what could be corrected was the mistake orthe category i.e. from General to any of the reserved category or vice-versa but not that a candidate who is not eligible in terms of advertisementissued on 18[th] June, 2013 becomes eligible under the guise of correctionof mistakes. We find that the High Court has erred in law in shifting theeligible date on the basis of Press Note which was restricted only forcorrection of mistakes or change of category.

9. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learnedcounsel for the respondents. In fact, such argument supports the argumentraised by the appellants that an Army personnel who is retiring withinforthcoming one year was not eligible prior to amendment on21[st] May, 2019. It is only on 21[st] May, 2019, an Army personnel who isretiring within forthcoming one year becomes eligible to apply for theState Services. Such amendment has not been given retrospective effectnor such amendment is clarificatory amendment as it confers a newright to the personnel retiring within next one year for the first time.Thus, the order passed by the Division Bench cannot be sustained and isthus set aside.

10. We have been informed that in terms of order passed by theDivision Bench of the High Court, certain candidates have been appointedand have joined the State services, though subject to the decision of thepresent proceedings. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred underArticle 142 of the Constitution of India, we order that all those Armypersonnel who have been appointed and joined in the category of Ex-servicemen in terms of the orders passed by the Division Bench of theHigh Court will continue as such but no other candidate will be appointedin terms of the order passed by the High Court.

11. The appeals are thus allowed.

A

B

C

D

EF

Divya Pandey

Appeals allowed.G

H