Judgment:
Prakash Tatia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Since in both the matters controversy involved are similar, therefore, both the writ petitions are decided by this common judgment.
3. Both the petitioners submitted that they possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Constable in RAC/Police and in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2 for appointment on the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police/RAC, the petitioners applied. The petitioners were successful in written test and, thereafter, they were called for physical test, wherein also, the petitioners were found physically able for appointment to the post concerned. However, the petitioner Shyam Lal was given only 3 marks in interview inspite of the fact that he secured 43.125 marks in the written test out of 50 marks and 20 marks out of 20 marks in physical fitness test. The another petitioner Madan Gopal secured 40 marks in the written test out of 50 marks and 20 marks out of 20 marks in physical fitness test. He also was awarded 3 marks in the interview. Because of this less marking in the interview, their candidature was rejected. It will be worthwhile to mention here that in the select list against both the persons' names there is a remark that they are selected. However, that remark was factually wrong as they have been denied appointment on the basis of total marks after adding the marks of the interview.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was total unfair on the part of the respondents in awarding such a low marks in the interview to the petitioners when they secured very good marks in the written test as well as in the physical fitness test. It is also submitted that the post in question is the post of Constable and looking to the post, the petitioners' candidature could not have been rejected merely because of the low marking in the interview.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Satyapal Kaswan v. State of Raj. and Ors. reported in 2005(8) RDD 3320 (Raj.) wherein the same very selection process and for the same post the controversy arises when petitioner of that case was awarded only 2 marks in interview then this Court in the above case, considered the question as to whether the respondents fairly and objectively allowed two marks to the petitioner in interview. In answer to that question, this Court observed that in normal course the presumption is that the selection board must have acted fairly, objectively and with view to select a best aspirant for appointment from available stuff, however, in present case a doubt is created about fairness of the selection board while granting 2 marks in interview for the reason that at first instance the petitioner was declared unfit to be appointed as constable by treating him suffering with flat foot. The petitioner subsequently on examination by competent Medical Board was found fit to be appointed as constable being not suffering with flat foot. In the above case, the petitioner secured 31 marks out of 50 marks in the written test and also stood first in 100 meters run. It is also noticed in the above case that there is shifting stand of the respondents and this Court instead of remanding the matter to the Selection Board itself directed the respondents to allow the same percentage of the marks to the petitioner in interview which he has secured in written test and then to determine the aggregate marks.
6. In the present case, the petitioner Shyam Lal whose name at S. No. 46 secured 43.125 marks out of 50 in the written test and 20 marks in the physical fitness test, he has been awarded only 3 marks in the interview. The same is the position of the petitioner Madan Gopal whose name at S. No. 17, secured 40 marks in written test out of 50 marks and 20 marks out of 20 marks in physical fitness test. He has also been awarded only 3 marks in interview. It appears from the list produced by the respondents (Annex.R/1) only these two candidates have been given less marks and these two candidates secured better marks in written and physical fitness tests, but failed to get the appointment because of the reason only that they secured lowest marks in interview. Therefore, it casts serious doubt on the fairness of the Selection Board. Since it is also a case where serious doubt has been successfully shown by the petitioners in awarding of the marks in interview, therefore, the cases of these petitioners are squarely covered by the judgment delivered in the case of Satyapal Kaswan (supra).
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerla and Ors. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 497 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the question as to how much marks should be allocated for interview would depend upon the post and nature of duties to be performed. The nature of duties to be performed on the post of watchman/messenger/attender is not such which requires a high intellectual ability or any particular trait of the candidates which is required to be judged by an Expert.
8. It is true that there is Rule 6 in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which provides that marks obtained in interview shall also be clubbed in the total marks obtained by the aspirant before he can find place in the merit list, but that does not mean that the award of marks which appears to be arbitrary, unjust can be justified only on the count of that Rule.
9. In view of the above reasons following the same principles as has been applied in the case of Satyapal Kaswan (supra), the writ petitions of the petitioners are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners' case for appointment by taking into account the same percentage of marks as they obtained in the other two tests i.e., in the written test and physical fitness test. The petitioners' case be considered and the appropriate orders be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, which may be served by the petitioners upon the respondents.