Pollution Control Board Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Asks State Why State Public Service Commission Not Appointed As Exam Agency

Rajasthan High Court has recently asked the State Pollution Control Board to answer why it chose IBPS instead of RPSC as the examination agency for filling vacancies in the posts of Legal Officer, Junior Scientific Officer and Junior Environmental Engineer.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain also asked the Pollution Control Board to explain in its affidavit why the appointment process was continued when the court was seized with the matter, given that important points of law are involved. The advertisement was issued by the Pollution Control Board on 05.10.2023. The examination was conducted on 09.01.2024.

“…. Previously, the recruitment process was carried out by MNIT. Thereafter, a deviation was adopted and instead of RPSC/Staff Selection Board, without any justifiable reason, respondent no.4 [IBPS] was appointed as the examination agency, which is a society registered in Bombay as a public trust”, the court pointed out in the order. The court further noted that no reason has been cited as to why RPSC and Staff Selection Board were bypassed by choosing IBPS for the selection process.

Proceedings were carried out under the provisions of Section 31(h) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Procurement Process Act (RTTP Act), whereby in an exceptional and emergent circumstance, a single procurement could be initiated qua the service, which has been done in the instant case, the counsel for the Pollution Board submitted. The bench sitting at Jaipur , however, emphasised that the exceptional and emergent circumstance under the provisions of Section 31(h) should have been highlighted in the relevant note sheets instead of a generic reasoning submitted by the respondent.

“….why despite the fact that transparency is key in examinations of a public nature, the requirements imposed vide the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Harkirat Singh Ghuman Vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court & Ors, AIR 2020 SC 4060, was bypassed”, this detail must also be added in the affidavit to be submitted by the Board, the court instructed.

In Harkirat Singh, the apex court held that model answer keys should be published and objections must be invited in multiple-choice examinations to ensure fairness and transparency in the recruitment process.

It is the grievance of the petitioner candidates in this case that none of these safeguards laid down by the Apex Court were followed. Hence, the cut-off marks couldn't be worked out by the candidates, it was submitted. The final result was declared without following the said procedure and without publishing the answer key, the candidates had submitted.

The respondent Board had earlier submitted that the advertisement did not specify any such condition of providing a model answer. Moreover, the advertisement has not been challenged by the candidates, and the rules of the game can't be altered once the candidates have duly participated in it.

Since it was not clear that the provisions of the RTTP Act were duly followed, the court had earlier called upon the State to answer the question.

“…The said note-sheet dated 17.08.2023 has not made any reference to the provisions of the RTPP Act. Moreover, no reasons were provided as to why the State agencies bypassed the selection process”, the court clarified as to why the note sheet was insufficient.

The matter has been listed on 22.03.2024 for the reply of the respondent board. AGC Devyani Rathore accepted the notice on behalf of the state.

Case Title: Narpat Surela v. State of Rajasthan & Connected Matters

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3567/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order