In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has upheld the validity of a selection process despite the omission of certain qualifying criteria from the official advertisement. The court held that if such criteria are published on the concerned department’s website, the selection process remains valid. The decision came in the case of Rameshwar Choudhary & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13295/2024), presided over by Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around the recruitment for the post of Veterinary Officer, as advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) on October 22, 2019. The petitioners, Rameshwar Choudhary, Vikram Kuri, Kiran Kumari, and Mukesh Kumar Aichara, applied for the post under the Physically Handicapped Category. After participating in the screening test and interview, they were not selected for the post. They subsequently filed a writ petition, challenging the selection process on the grounds that a minimum qualifying mark of 45% for the Physically Handicapped Category was not mentioned in the advertisement.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the RPSC could enforce a minimum qualifying mark of 45% when it was not explicitly mentioned in the advertisement but was available on the RPSC’s website. The petitioners argued that the rules of the game could not be changed after the initiation of the recruitment process and that such qualifying criteria should have been disclosed in the advertisement itself. They contended that the absence of such criteria in the advertisement rendered the selection process arbitrary and unfair.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners:
The petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Sushil Solanki, argued that the omission of the 45% minimum qualifying mark in the official advertisement was a violation of the recruitment process’s transparency and fairness. He submitted that, according to Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Rules, 1963, the criteria for determining the “suitability” of candidates must be clearly defined. Solanki contended that the petitioners were unaware of the minimum qualifying marks requirement, which was only revealed after the results were published. He asserted that this omission constituted a change in the rules after the process had started, which is legally impermissible.
For the Respondents:
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Mr. I.R. Choudhary, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pawan Bharti and Mr. Tarun Joshi, argued that the minimum qualifying mark of 45% was established by the Full Commission of the RPSC to ensure a fair and transparent selection process. They asserted that this criterion had been available on the RPSC’s official website, as mentioned in the advertisement, and could have been accessed by the candidates. The counsel cited a precedent from a previous judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Praveen Kumar Meena v. RPSC & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5619/2021) to argue that the inclusion of qualifying criteria on the website was sufficient to meet the legal requirements for transparency.
Court’s Decision
Justice Mathur dismissed the petition, stating that the selection process was not arbitrary or illegal. The court observed that the criteria of securing a minimum of 45% marks for the Physically Handicapped Category was indeed mentioned on the RPSC’s website, which was referenced in the advertisement. Thus, the omission of this information from the advertisement did not vitiate the entire process.
Justice Mathur remarked, “It is a settled law that if the parameter or procedure framed by the RPSC or any other authority is fair and impartial and all the candidates are given a level playing field, there is no scope for interference by this Court.”
The court further noted that since the petitioners had participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the conditions available on the website, they could not now challenge the process after failing to secure the requisite marks. “The petitioners, having consciously participated in the interview, cannot turn around and challenge the selection process,” the judge observed, quoting a similar decision by the Supreme Court in Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020).
Case Title: Rameshwar Choudhary & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13295/2024
