{"id":241501,"date":"2008-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-07-22T02:44:48","modified_gmt":"2015-07-21T21:14:48","slug":"bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008<\/div>\n
                                             1\n\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n\n                                        JODHPUR\n\n\n\n                                       :ORDER:\n\n\n\n               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3320\/2006.\n               (Bhawani Singh Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others)\n\n\n               DATE OF ORDER :                     September 23rd, 2008\n\n\n                                      PRESENT\n\n                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS\n                   ____________________________________\n\n\n               Mr. Kamal Dave for the petitioner.\n               Mr. Tarun Joshi and Mr. R.S. Choudhary, Advocates\n               for the respondents.\n\nReportable :    BY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
                     In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the<\/p>\n
               relief that the respondents may be directed to place him at<\/p>\n
               a merit position higher than that of respondent No.3 and<\/p>\n
               offer appointment to the petitioner as per his preferences<\/p>\n
               for the post.\n<\/p>\n
                     According to the facts narrated by the petitioner,<\/p>\n
               being eligible to compete for the Rajasthan State and<\/p>\n
               Subordinate Services, he applied for the competitive<\/p>\n
               examination in pursuance of the advertisement dated<\/p>\n
               06.04.2003.     The said notification was published in the<\/p>\n
               Employment News dated 15.04.2003.               In all, 493<\/p>\n
               vacancies were advertised for which applications were<\/p>\n
               called from the eligible candidates for direct recruitment to<\/p>\n
               the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services. According
\n                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
to the petitioner, he is science graduate and, being as such<\/p>\n
eligible as per his qualification, he applied to appear at the<\/p>\n
said examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public<\/p>\n
Service Commission.\n<\/p>\n
          Aforesaid combined competitive examination was<\/p>\n
conducted as per the scheme under the Rajasthan State &<\/p>\n
Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined<\/p>\n
Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (in short, to be<\/p>\n
called hereinafter as “the Rules of 1999”).                    According to<\/p>\n
the petitioner, as per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999, it is<\/p>\n
provided that the combined competitive examination is to<\/p>\n
be   conducted       by      the     Commission           and    the    said<\/p>\n
examination, under the scheme, consists of three-tier<\/p>\n
selection     process     i.e.,    Preliminary     Examination,         Main<\/p>\n
Examination and viva voce.               The candidate is required to<\/p>\n
obtain certain percentage of marks in the Preliminary<\/p>\n
Examination to become eligible for appearing at the Main<\/p>\n
Examination.       That is, however, for the purpose of short-<\/p>\n
listing    only   and   marks       obtained       at    the    preliminary<\/p>\n
examination       are     not      taken    into        consideration    for<\/p>\n
determining the final order of merit.               As per Rule 15, in<\/p>\n
the Main Examination candidates 15 times in number of<\/p>\n
the number of vacancies to be filled up in the year in the<\/p>\n
various services are allowed to appear.                    Candidate who<\/p>\n
obtains such qualifying marks in the Main Examination as<\/p>\n
may be fixed by the Commission shall be entitled to be<\/p>\n
called for the interview and marks so awarded at the<\/p>\n
interview are to be added in the marks obtained at the<\/p>\n
Main Examination. In that way, the final merit list is to be<\/p>\n
prepared for recruitment to various services.
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
      Having cleared the preliminary examination, the<\/p>\n
petitioner appeared at the main examination and was also<\/p>\n
called for interview.      The petitioner was interviewed on<\/p>\n
06.07.2005.    The Commission declared the final select list<\/p>\n
in the order of merit.         As per the petitioner, 1073<\/p>\n
candidates were included in the final select list in the order<\/p>\n
of merit.\n<\/p>\n
      The respondent Commission after preparing the final<\/p>\n
select list recommended the said list to the Government<\/p>\n
after the same being published for general information.<\/p>\n
Rule 17 of the Rules of 1999 provides for recommendation<\/p>\n
by the Commission of the candidates whose names are<\/p>\n
included in the final select list after completion of the<\/p>\n
process of recruitment through written examination and<\/p>\n
interview.   As per Rule 17 of the Rules of 1999, in order to<\/p>\n
meet situation in which if two or more of such candidates<\/p>\n
obtain equal marks in the aggregate the Commission shall<\/p>\n
arrange their names in the order of merit on the basis of<\/p>\n
their general suitability for the service.      The said rule,<\/p>\n
however, does not incorporate any explanation of the term<\/p>\n
“general suitability”.    The petitioner contends that he was<\/p>\n
found suitable after completion of the process of selection<\/p>\n
and   his    name   was    included   at   S.No.473    with   Roll<\/p>\n
No.280631, being in the category OBC.\n<\/p>\n
      It is the case of the petitioner that he stood in merit<\/p>\n
as aforesaid in view of the fact that he obtained 840 marks<\/p>\n
out of 1460 marks in aggregate, having secured 750<\/p>\n
marks out of 1300 marks in the written examination and<\/p>\n
87 marks out of 160 marks in the interview.           Standing at<\/p>\n
equal merit in view of the aggregate marks, another
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
candidate respondent No.3 Raghuveer Singh was placed at<\/p>\n
S.No.471 with Roll No.324638 who also belonged to the<\/p>\n
category OBC.            Grievance of the petitioner is that<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 Raghuveer Singh secured exactly same<\/p>\n
aggregate marks as petitioner but respondent No.3 was<\/p>\n
offered appointment to the post of Cooperative Inspector<\/p>\n
on the ground that his name was placed above the name<\/p>\n
of   the   petitioner    because       although    in    the    written<\/p>\n
examination he secured 740 marks but in the interview he<\/p>\n
was awarded 100 marks whereas the petitioner was<\/p>\n
awarded 87 marks in the interview although in the written<\/p>\n
examination the petitioner obtained more marks than<\/p>\n
respondent No.3.        The date of birth of respondent No.3 is<\/p>\n
20.04.1979 whereas date of birth of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
24.02.1976     and      he   was   30    years    of    age    whereas<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 was 27 years of age at the relevant time.<\/p>\n
Both the candidates have secured 840 aggregate marks<\/p>\n
out of total 1460 marks.\n<\/p>\n
      In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he<\/p>\n
is older than respondent No.3 and has secured more marks<\/p>\n
in   the   written   examination        than     respondent      No.3,<\/p>\n
therefore, he was to be given the preference over<\/p>\n
respondent No.3, however, the State respondents have<\/p>\n
offered appointment to respondent No.3 knowingly well<\/p>\n
that he has secured lesser marks than the petitioner in the<\/p>\n
written examination although his aggregate marks are<\/p>\n
equal to the marks obtained by the petitioner and such<\/p>\n
aggregate marks were obtained by respondent No.3 due to<\/p>\n
the fact that he was given 100 marks out of 160 marks in<\/p>\n
the interview.          According to the petitioner, he was
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
informed verbally by the State respondents that as per<\/p>\n
criteria prescribed under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1999,<\/p>\n
“general suitability” is required to be seen in such<\/p>\n
circumstance for the purpose of recommending the name<\/p>\n
of the candidate who has secured equal marks and for<\/p>\n
general suitability marks obtained at viva voce have been<\/p>\n
taken into consideration, therefore, name of respondent<\/p>\n
No.3 who has secured more marks than the petitioner in<\/p>\n
viva   voce      was   recommended             and    he    was    offered<\/p>\n
appointment       by   the   State       Government         as    per   the<\/p>\n
recommendation made by the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned     counsel    for       the    petitioner    vehemently<\/p>\n
argued that such criteria adopted for the State and<\/p>\n
Subordinate Services by the State respondents is totally<\/p>\n
arbitrary and illegal being discriminatory because in such a<\/p>\n
situation, in most of the services, name of the older<\/p>\n
candidate is required to be recommended, therefore, the<\/p>\n
date of birth is found to be the valid criteria, then, different<\/p>\n
criteria cannot be adopted for recruitment to the Rajasthan<\/p>\n
State & Subordinate Services. It is vehemently contended<\/p>\n
by learned counsel for the petitioner that obviously general<\/p>\n
performance can be seen on the basis of marks obtained in<\/p>\n
the    written     examination          whereas       the    respondent<\/p>\n
Commission has adopted arbitrary and discriminatory<\/p>\n
criteria whereby they have considered general suitability<\/p>\n
on the basis of marks obtained in the viva voce test.                    At<\/p>\n
the time of sending the names to the State Government, if<\/p>\n
two or more candidates have secured equal marks then<\/p>\n
the    respondent      Commission             ought   to    have    given<\/p>\n
preference to the older candidate and cannot take into
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
account the marks obtained in the viva voce test which is<\/p>\n
arbitrary because the candidate who is older vis-\u00e0-vis the<\/p>\n
other candidate who has secured equal marks can lose the<\/p>\n
opportunity to undergo further selection in view of the<\/p>\n
prescribed    upper age      limit, therefore,    the basis for<\/p>\n
adopting such criteria should be the factum of            date of<\/p>\n
birth; but, arbitrarily the State respondents have not<\/p>\n
adopted the said criteria and followed a different criteria by<\/p>\n
which they are considering the candidate who has secured<\/p>\n
more marks in the interview in the event of securing equal<\/p>\n
aggregate marks by two or more candidates.              According<\/p>\n
to learned counsel for the petitioner, such criteria is<\/p>\n
erroneous and illegal because in all other services like<\/p>\n
selection    for   the   posts   of   Teacher    the   respondent<\/p>\n
Commission is adopting the criteria of sending names of<\/p>\n
older candidate in the event of securing equal marks by<\/p>\n
two or more candidates whereas, in the present case, the<\/p>\n
respondents have assessed the general suitability of<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 on the basis of marks obtained in the viva<\/p>\n
voce test.    Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically<\/p>\n
submitted that such criteria gives arbitrary and unbridled<\/p>\n
power to the Selection Committee to select the candidate<\/p>\n
of their own choice and this proposition of law has been<\/p>\n
deprecated by the Supreme Court in so many cases.<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of<\/p>\n
the Court towards the judgment in the case of Mohinder<\/p>\n
Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1991) 1 SCC<\/p>\n
662, in which it has been held that in the case of<\/p>\n
composite process of selection comprising of written<\/p>\n
examination and interview of the candidates fresh from
\n                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
schools and colleges for public employment, allocation of<\/p>\n
more than 15 per cent of the total marks for viva voce test<\/p>\n
would be unreasonable and excessive and violative of<\/p>\n
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
         Likewise, referring to another judgment of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Singh & Another Vs.<\/p>\n
Subordinate Services Selection Board Haryana & Others,<\/p>\n
reported in (1991) 1 SCC 686, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner submitted that the said judgment is based upon<\/p>\n
number of earlier judgments of the apex Court and all<\/p>\n
those judgments were considered by the Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
more specifically the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar<\/p>\n
Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 417.<\/p>\n
The apex Court, in that judgment, categorically observed<\/p>\n
that where there is a composite test consisting of a written<\/p>\n
examination followed by a viva voce test, the number of<\/p>\n
candidates to be called for interview in order of the marks<\/p>\n
obtained in the written examination, should not exceed<\/p>\n
twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to<\/p>\n
be filled.      If a viva voce test is to be carried out in a<\/p>\n
thorough and scientific manner, as it must be in order to<\/p>\n
arrive    at   a   fair   and   satisfactory     evaluation   of   the<\/p>\n
personality of a candidate, the interview must take<\/p>\n
anything       between     10   to       30   minutes.        In   the<\/p>\n
circumstances, it would be impossible to carry out a<\/p>\n
satisfactory viva voce test if a large unmanageable number<\/p>\n
of candidates are to be interviewed.            The interviews would<\/p>\n
then tend to be casual, superficial and sloppy and the<\/p>\n
assessment made at such interviews would not correctly<\/p>\n
effect the true measure of the personality of the candidate.
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
Moreover,   such a   course        would widen    the   area    of<\/p>\n
arbitrariness, for even a candidate who is very much lower<\/p>\n
down in the list on the basis of marks obtained in the<\/p>\n
written   examination,   can   come     within   the    range   of<\/p>\n
selection, if he is awarded unduly high marks at the viva<\/p>\n
voce examination.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting<\/p>\n
attention towards the facts of this case submits that<\/p>\n
admittedly respondent No.3 who is placed at merit position<\/p>\n
of 471 secured 840 aggregate marks and has been offered<\/p>\n
appointment whereas the petitioner also secured 840<\/p>\n
aggregate marks but he has not been placed above<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 on the ground that out of 840 marks<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 secured more marks in viva voce test<\/p>\n
than the petitioner; meaning thereby, so called criteria<\/p>\n
adopted by the Commission is based upon the marks<\/p>\n
obtained in interview in the event of two or more<\/p>\n
candidates securing equal aggregate marks, however, the<\/p>\n
respondents themselves have admitted in their reply that<\/p>\n
in the given situation where the candidates secure equal<\/p>\n
marks in aggregate as well as in interview, then the<\/p>\n
candidate older in age shall be given preference, therefore,<\/p>\n
in this view of the matter, on the one hand, the<\/p>\n
Commission is accepting that petitioner has secured more<\/p>\n
marks in the written examination and as per age he is<\/p>\n
older than respondent No.3 and in the event two or more<\/p>\n
candidates secure equal marks in aggregate as well as<\/p>\n
interview, then, the candidate older in age shall be given<\/p>\n
preference. But, on the other hand, respondent No.3 has<\/p>\n
been placed above the petitioner in the merit list and he
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
has been offered appointment whereas the petitioner has<\/p>\n
been denied the same in contravention of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
adjudication made by the apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
       Per contra, learned counsel for the Commission<\/p>\n
vehement argued that as per the judgment in the case of<\/p>\n
K.H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala & Others, reported in<\/p>\n
(2006)    6   SCC     395,      it    is   held   that     Public    Service<\/p>\n
Commission or any other recruitment authority is justified<\/p>\n
to prepare the criteria for adjudging the suitability of the<\/p>\n
candidates.      In this case, as per the respondents, both the<\/p>\n
petitioner and respondent No.3 secured 840 marks out of<\/p>\n
1460     marks      but   the        petitioner    though        older     than<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 has secured less marks in interview i.e.,<\/p>\n
87 marks out of 160 marks, therefore, on the basis of<\/p>\n
higher    marks      obtained         in   the    interview,       name      of<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 who was at S.No.471 in the merit list<\/p>\n
was recommended for appointment although he is younger<\/p>\n
than the petitioner.         In this view of the matter, as per<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents, the criteria adopted is<\/p>\n
not new and has been made applicable by the respondent<\/p>\n
Commission       since    long       back    which    is    in    existence,<\/p>\n
therefore,    the    petitioner       cannot      claim    any     right    for<\/p>\n
including his name above the name of respondent No.3<\/p>\n
because the criteria adopted by the respondents is justified<\/p>\n
and aimed at securing the object of selecting more<\/p>\n
competent administrative officer.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently<\/p>\n
argued that the administrative post cannot be equated with<\/p>\n
the posts of Teacher. For the purpose of appointment on<\/p>\n
administrative post, it is always open to the respondent
\n                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
Commission to prepare the criteria to select most suitable<\/p>\n
person in the administrative side whereas for the post of<\/p>\n
Teacher there is no provision for interview and merit is to<\/p>\n
be assessed on the basis of the written examination only<\/p>\n
and, in that even, the respondent Commission would<\/p>\n
include the name of older person in the select-list in the<\/p>\n
event of two or more candidates securing equal marks.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right of inclusion<\/p>\n
of his name in the select-list in preference to respondent<\/p>\n
No.3 on the basis of the argument that the Commission<\/p>\n
has made applicable different criteria for other services<\/p>\n
where   only   the    written    examination    is    prescribed.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it can be said that the Commission rightly<\/p>\n
assessed the suitability of respondent No.3 whereby he<\/p>\n
was placed at a higher position than the petitioner in the<\/p>\n
order of merit and the writ petition deserves to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      I have considered rival submissions made by both<\/p>\n
the parties.\n<\/p>\n
      In this case, the selections were made on the basis<\/p>\n
of competitive examination conducted by the respondent<\/p>\n
Commission in accordance with Rule d15 of the Rajasthan<\/p>\n
State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by<\/p>\n
Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 which<\/p>\n
provides for method of selection according to which the<\/p>\n
candidates are required to appear in the preliminary<\/p>\n
examination and, then, after passing the preliminary<\/p>\n
examination    if    the   candidate    comes        within   the<\/p>\n
consideration zone he is required to pass the main<\/p>\n
examination and, thereafter, appear for the viva voce test.
\n                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No.3 both<\/p>\n
appeared in the said examination being eligible.                 There is<\/p>\n
no dispute with regard to eligibility of both the candidates.<\/p>\n
However, detail of both the candidates is as below :<\/p>\n
                             Bhawani Singh         Raghuveer Singh\n                               (Petition)               (Res. No.3)\nMarks in written test               753                    740<\/span>\nMarks in Viva-Voce                  87                     100<\/span>\nTotal Aggregate Marks               840                    840<\/span>\nDate of Birth                  24.02.1976                20.04.1979\nAge                             30 years                   27 years\nQualification                  B.Sc.(64%)                   B.A.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      The above detail clearly speaks that the petitioner<\/p>\n
has secured higher marks in the main written examination<\/p>\n
and respondent No.3 secured 740 marks i.e., less than<\/p>\n
marks    obtained       by    the     petitioner   in     the     written<\/p>\n
examination.\n<\/p>\n
      According to the above facts, admittedly respondent<\/p>\n
No.3 has secured 100 marks and the petitioners has<\/p>\n
secured 87 marks in the viva voce test, therefore, on the<\/p>\n
basis of so called criteria prepared by the Commission on<\/p>\n
the ground that the post of State and Subordinate Services<\/p>\n
is different than the post of Teacher and other services<\/p>\n
and, in that view, for selecting more suitable person marks<\/p>\n
obtained in the interview have been considered in the<\/p>\n
event of two or more candidates securing equal aggregate<\/p>\n
marks in the process of selection.\n<\/p>\n
      In my opinion, in the said event, as per criteria of<\/p>\n
the Commission they are taking into consideration for the<\/p>\n
purpose of assessing merit the marks obtained in the viva<\/p>\n
voce test only which is not justifiable because the
\n                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
knowledge of the candidate can be assessed from the<\/p>\n
written examination.        In all the academic examinations<\/p>\n
until securing the eligibility qualification, in the education<\/p>\n
system,     the   educational     institutions     are    even      today<\/p>\n
assessing       the   knowledge        in   respect      of   particular<\/p>\n
qualification     through   the        written    examination        and,<\/p>\n
therefore, the significance of the written examination<\/p>\n
cannot be lightly brushed aside.            It is not the case of the<\/p>\n
respondents that the viva voce test preponderantly carried<\/p>\n
much weightage         in the given recruitment as per the<\/p>\n
scheme of the examination and, on the other hand, it is<\/p>\n
admitted in the reply that if two or more candidates secure<\/p>\n
equal aggregate marks then the candidate securing equal<\/p>\n
aggregate marks then the candidate securing more marks<\/p>\n
in the interview shall be given preference, and in a<\/p>\n
situation where the candidates secure equal marks in<\/p>\n
aggregate as well as in interview, then, the candidate older<\/p>\n
in age shall be given preference.             Thereby meaning that,<\/p>\n
ultimately, in an enigmatic situation such as one in the<\/p>\n
instant case, the respondent Commission has only evolved<\/p>\n
the criteria to wriggle out from the situation and, truly, the<\/p>\n
criteria is not based upon logistic approach.                    In the<\/p>\n
circumstance, therefore, in my considered opinion, the<\/p>\n
marks obtained at the written examination, under the<\/p>\n
scheme of examination for the State & Subordinate<\/p>\n
Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Examination) as<\/p>\n
it is, cannot be given lesser weightage in any event<\/p>\n
because ultimately in the process the suitability of the<\/p>\n
candidate is adjudged by his performance at the written<\/p>\n
examination.          Therefore,       even      according     to     the
\n                                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents, in a situation where the candidates secure<\/p>\n
equal marks in aggregate as well as in interview, then, the<\/p>\n
candidate older in age shall be given preference.                 The<\/p>\n
conclusion    is   thus    obviously       based   on   equity    and,<\/p>\n
therefore, while not losing sight of the performance of a<\/p>\n
candidate in the written examination, in such a situation,<\/p>\n
recommendation of the name of the older person is the<\/p>\n
proper criteria and unless specific ground is established for<\/p>\n
deviating from the general rule the same must be adhered<\/p>\n
to.\n<\/p>\n
        Moreover, any criteria which is totally based upon<\/p>\n
the marks obtained in the viva voce test is neither fair nor<\/p>\n
permissible in view of the apex Court pronouncement in<\/p>\n
number of cases.          In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav,<\/p>\n
(supra), the apex Court categorically laid down that even<\/p>\n
where both written examination and viva voce test are<\/p>\n
prescribed, ultimate selection should not be based upon<\/p>\n
the viva voce test only.            This proposition of law was<\/p>\n
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the basis of<\/p>\n
the fact that in the event of interviewing large number of<\/p>\n
candidates, more often the exercise is formal and it is not<\/p>\n
possible to assess the suitability of the candidates within<\/p>\n
10 to 30 minutes.     In the present case also, large number<\/p>\n
of candidates were         interviewed and, admittedly, the<\/p>\n
duration of interview was in between 10 to 30 minutes. In<\/p>\n
this view of the matter, the criteria adopted by the<\/p>\n
Commission, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case, is arbitrary and illegal.             The contention of the<\/p>\n
respondents cannot be accepted that the criteria is not<\/p>\n
under     challenge   in    this    writ    petition    because    the
\n                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent    has   not     published   the     criteria   in   the<\/p>\n
advertisement and, straight away, it is followed at the time<\/p>\n
of the selection process.     Therefore, the petitioner cannot<\/p>\n
be denied his claim only on the ground that he has secured<\/p>\n
less marks in the viva voce test than respondent No.3.           In<\/p>\n
this view of the matter, the denial of the claim of the<\/p>\n
petitioner for selection is totally arbitrary and violative of<\/p>\n
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and, so<\/p>\n
also, claim of the petitioner is on the better footing then<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 because, admittedly he has secured<\/p>\n
higher marks in the written examination, therefore, he is<\/p>\n
more suitable than respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
       As a result, this writ petition is allowed.              The<\/p>\n
respondent    Rajasthan     Public   Service     Commission      is<\/p>\n
directed to recommend the name of the petitioner to the<\/p>\n
State Government while treating the petitioner above<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 in the merit list.            Upon receiving the<\/p>\n
recommendation by the State Government from the<\/p>\n
respondent Commission, the petitioner shall be accorded<\/p>\n
appointment as per his merit on the post for which he is<\/p>\n
entitled   and   the   petitioner     shall    be   granted      all<\/p>\n
consequential benefits from the date such appointment<\/p>\n
was provided to respondent No.3.        However, such benefits<\/p>\n
as seniority and increments etc. shall be granted to the<\/p>\n
petitioner notionally and the petitioner shall not be entitled<\/p>\n
to any arrears of pay till the date of this judgment\/order.<\/p>\n
                                     (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.\n<\/p>\n
\nOjha, a.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3320\/2006. (Bhawani Singh Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER : September 23rd, 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-241501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nBhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-21T21:14:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T21:14:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3446,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T21:14:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-21T21:14:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T21:14:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008"},"wordCount":3446,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008","name":"Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T21:14:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhawani-singh-charan-vs-state-ors-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhawani Singh Charan vs State & Ors on 23 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241501","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=241501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241501\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}