Rajasthan HC Dismisses Petitions Challenging Scaling Formula of Results of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Range Officer Grade-I Recruitment Exam

The petitioners also alleged that the same adversely affected the final merit to be drawn on the basis of marks scaled. Moreover, the petitioner sought directions to the respondents to declare the result on the basis of raw marks.

Justice Inderjeet Singh dismissed the batch of writ petitions on the following grounds:

1. By applying the formula of scaling, since as many as 14 different optional subjects including grouping was available, the respondent provided same level playing field to all the candidates and hence the scaling formula has been rightly applied by the expert body, added the court

2. It was opined by the court that there is no allegation that the paper/question is out of syllabus as prescribed under the Rules;

3. While considering that a Full Commission has taken a conscious decision based on the report of the expert for applying the formula of scaling, the court observed that it cannot sit as an Appellate Court on the decision taken by the experts in the field as has been held by the Supreme Court in UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya;

4. The court observed that the candidates have challenged the procedure after participating in the selection process and are thus estopped to challenge the same after participating. The same view was passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2017], added the court;

5. It was noted by the court that out of 32382 candidates, only 17 candidates have approached the court by filing the present writ petitions without there being any allegation of malafide either against the Chairman or Members of the Board. In this regard, the court opined that in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi & Ors., the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and;

6. The court, while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court observed that the petitioner relied on Sanjay Singh & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Anr. [2007] which relates to the examination of the Judicial Officers where all the subjects were compulsory. However, the court noted that in the present selection process, apart from two compulsory subjects there are 14 optional subjects, out of which five groups were formed, as such for the purpose of giving equal opportunity to the candidates the formula of scaling was applied.

In furtherance, the court opined that the comparison with the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules will not help the petitioners. The court observed that in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, all the subjects are compulsory in nature and no optional subject is there whereas in the present rules i.e.. Rajasthan Forest Service Rules and Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, apart from two compulsory subjects, 14 optional subjects were available in the syllabus.

The petitioners' counsel argued that the RPSC in an arbitrary manner has given one more chance to the candidates for change in the subjects offered by them which shows that there is complete absence of bonafides in the action of the respondents. He submitted that the respondents have neither notified the formula of scaling nor provided any information regarding application of said formula to the candidates prior to its application.

He argued that since the OMR sheets were used in the examination by the RPSC, therefore, there is no question of difficulty in level playing field. He submitted that prior to applying the formula of scaling no expert opinion was taken by the RPSC. It was submitted that there are no provisions in the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules and Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules regarding applying of scaling formula.

Counsels for the Petitioners: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Manish Parihar Adv., Mr. Abhinav Sharma Adv., Mr. Raghunandan Sharma Adv. and Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman Adv.

Counsels for the Respondents: Mr. M.S. Singhvi Advocate General assisted by Mr. Siddhant Jain and Mr. M.F. Baig, Adv.

Case Title: Gourav Sharma & Anr. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 177