Not Following Issuance Of Model Or Final Answer Key, Inviting Objections & Constitution Of Experts Committee Violates Candidates’ Fundamental Rights: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court held that not following issuance of model answer key or final answer key, inviting of objections, and constitution of experts committee, violates fundamental rights of candidates.
The Jaipur Bench held thus in a batch of Writ Petitions preferred by the candidates, seeking recruitment in the concerned positions.
A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed, “That the proper manner i.e. issuance of model answer key, inviting of objections, constitution of experts committee and issuance of final answer key was not followed in the instant recruitment process, and the same has violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners as enshrined under the provisions of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India … the writ petitioners are not barred by the principles of acquiescence, estoppel and waiver.”
The Bench emphasised that the candidates cannot be obstructed from assailing the recruitment process and the same shall not be restricted by the Doctrine of Estoppel.
Advocate Tribhuvan Narayan Singh represented the Petitioners while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Bharat Vyas represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The Respondents vide Advertisement in 2023, invited applications from the eligible candidates for the posts of Junior Scientific Officer (JSO), Junior Environment Engineer (JEE), and Legal Officer – II (LO-II). Subsequently, the Respondents issued a vigyapti, corrigendum, and information guidelines for the applicants. The said examination (for JSO) was scheduled in January 2024. Consecutively, the provisional list of the shortlisted candidates for document verification for the post of JSO was released in February 2024. In the said list(s) the Respondents also issued the category wise cut-off marks i.e., qua GEN-UR, EWS, ST, BC, and MBC along with the horizontal cut-off marks with respect to the categories like Persons With Disabilities and Ex-servicemen.
The controversy resulting to the Petitions before the High Court arose when the Petitioners (candidates) did not find their name in the provisional list. The primary grievance of the Petitioners was that they did not receive the question booklet as the said examination was conducted via online mode nor any model answer key was published by the Respondents. Therefore, the said examination was alleged to be biased, unfair, and conducted in a non-transparent manner, bypassing the settled provisions of law.
The following issues arose before the High Court for its consideration –
I) Whether the Board had the authority under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1993 to delegate the powers and appoint respondent-IBPS as an examination conducting authority? Whether the said action is valid and legal?
II) Whether invoking the powers under Section 31(h) of the RTPP Act, for single source procurement by appointing respondent-IBPS were correct?
III) Whether MoU dated 04.10.2023 legally admissible?
IV) Whether the instant selection process of direct recruitment, conducted in a transparent, unbiased and legal manner, sans any malice in law?
V) Whether the petitioners are barred by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? Whether the rules of game can be changed?
While dealing with the first issue, the Court noted, “… once a committee is formulated as per the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules and Regulations of 1993 under the Chairman-ship of the member-Secretary, the present mechanism of direct recruitment through respondent-IBPS is valid and unerring.”
With regard to the second issue, it said that the rules of carrying out business and execution were violated and that the engagement of IBPS is a sheer attempt to overshadow the lapses violating the provisions of RTPP Act and allied provisions.
“… the said MoU cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence as the same has not complied with the provisions of the Stamps Act, the Rajasthan Stamps Act”, noted the Court while considering the third issue.
In view of the fourth issue, the Court said that, at the drop of the hat, the Respondents have rushed to conclude the said selection process and the same reflects the malice in law and violation of provisions of RTPP Act and Article 309 of the Constitution of India and other allied provisions.
“It is noted that no objections were called by the respondents subsequent to the release of provisional answer key, no proper rationale and explanations are tendered by the expert committee, if so formulated. Therefore, the respondents have failed to comply with the directions spelled out in Harkirat Singh Ghuman (Supra) and Ramjit Singh Kardam (Supra). Withal, there are certain disputed questions of facts which cannot be dealt by this Court at this nascent juncture, while exercising powers as a writ court”, it added.
With respect to the fifth issue, the Court observed that the Petitioners and the batch of Petitions are not hit by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence as the candidates had approached the Court within appropriate time and no lapses are identified in their conduct which bars/estopps them.
“… when the examination authority has failed to publish any criteria moreover, the candidates had a legitimate expectation that the respondents would follow the settled position of conducting recruitment examination. Thence, the candidates cannot be obstructed from assailing the recruitment process and the same shall not be restricted by the doctrine of estoppel”, it remarked.
Furthermore, the Court elucidated that to maintain transparency in the public employment especially where multiple choice question-answer pattern is followed, the question papers should be provided to the candidates after the conclusion of the said examination; provisional/model answer key should be released; objections should be called; expert committee should be constituted and reasonable explanation and justification should be tendered to the dubious questions; and only after following the said procedure the final answer key should be released.
“… the respondent-RSCPB falls under the ambit of Section 3 of the RTPP Act and sine qua non the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the RTPP Act and Rule 17 of the RTPP Rules, the respondents initiated Single Source Procurement under Section 31(h) sans tendering any rationale or administrative reasons”, it also held.
The Court, therefore, directed that the examination/recruitment supervising authority, the respondent-RSPCB, and the respondent-IBPS shall carry out the selection process, strictly in accordance with law within two months.
“… the services of the said candidates shall not be confirmed till the unbiased outcome of the instant recruitment, as per the directions of this Court is released”, it also clarified.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- Narpat Surela v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:49565)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Tribhuvan Narayan Singh, Sukhdev Singh Solanki, Vishwanath Karan Rathore, Satya Prakash Sharma, Arvind Rana, and R. B. Sharma.
Respondents: AAG Bharat Vyas, AGC Archit Bohra, Advocates Niti Jain Bhandari, Praveer Sharma, Harsh Vardhan Katara, Akhil Simlote, Ashvini Raj Tanwar, Dikshant Jain, Prateek Mathur, Rajendra Kumar Salecha, Tanisha Khubchandani, Hitesh Kumar, Abhinav Srivastava, Nikhil Kumawat, Raghu Nandan Sharma, Sandeep Pathak, Jaya Pathak, and Akshat Sharma.
