When Selection Criteria Is Mentioned On Website, Non-Mentioning In Advertisement For Post Does Not Vitiate Selection Process: Rajasthan HC
Nupur Agrawal
13 Sep 2024 5:53 AM GMT
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that not mentioning of selection criteria in the advertisement for a public post when the same was explicitly mentioned on the website of the concerned department would not vitiate the entire selection process since the criteria could not be said to have been added after the initiation of the selection process.
“It is also noted that the Rules of selection were not changed for the selection process as they are very much in existence prior to the date of selection on the Website of RPSC, however, non mentioning of the same in the advertisement will not vitiate the entire selection process.”
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur was hearing a petition filed against the State Government by certain candidates for the post of veterinary officer in the physically handicapped category who were not selected because they did not get the minimum prescribed marks in the selection process.
It was the case of the petitioners that the selection criteria of getting minimum prescribed marks was not mentioned by the respondents in the advertisement for the post. The criteria were prescribed by issuing press notes in subsequent advertisements.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the rules of the game could not be changed after initiation of the process of recruitment and since no such selection criteria were mentioned in the advertisement, the petitioners could not have been disqualified based on non-fulfilment of those criteria.
On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the criteria was not added after the initiation of the selection process, but was very much in existence and mentioned on the website. It was stated that the advertisement for the post informed the viewers to visit the website for any further information which provided all the guidelines and instructions including this criteria.
It was further argued that the criteria were added based on the decision of the Full Commission of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Rules, 1963 (“the Rules”) which mentioned that the Commission should consider suitable candidates for the concerned post.
The counsel argued that earlier the selection criteria was only an interview that gave unbridled and unchecked discretion to the interview board. Hence, to make the selection process more transparent and less arbitrary, the criteria of minimum marks was added.
The Court agreed with the arguments put forth on behalf of the respondents and held that it could not be accepted that the criteria of minimum marks were not prescribed initially since it was not mentioned in the advertisement, because the advertisement informed the candidates to check the website for further information which mentioned the criteria.
Furthermore, the Court opined that Rule 20 of the Rules clearly gave power to the Commission to consider suitable candidates and it was for judging this suitability that the criteria was prescribed by the Commission. Hence, it could not be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
“It is a settled law that if the parameter/procedure framed by the RPSC or any other authority is fair and impartial and all the candidates are given the level playing field, then there is no scope for interference by this Court.”
The Court observed that if because of the fair and impartial procedure some candidates were affected adversely, the Court must refrain from intervening for the larger benefit of the candidates.
Accordingly, the Court did not find any merit for interference and dismissed the petition.
Title: Rameshwar Choudhary & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 254
