Madhopur v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its

Judgment

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ajmer

2. The Principal Education Secretary, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. The Director, College Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. H. R. Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Shubhendra Singh for respondents No.2 & 3, Mr. Amit Kuri, Mr. Harshvardhan Shekhawat, Mr. Dharma Ram, Ms. Nandini Mirdha [2025:RJ-JP:7343-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-553/2013] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 19/02/2025 Order This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 27.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellants was dismissed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed as under:- “It thereafter recommendations of the said Committee of experts were sent by the R.P.S.C. vide its letter dated 07.06.2012 to the Government for its approval. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education) vide his letter dated 06.08.2012 informed the R.P.S.C. that the Government has approved the recommendations of the Committee and directed that the candidates having possessed M.B.A./M.B.A. With specialization in functional and related area/M.H.R.M./M.I.B./M.M.S., may be treated eligible for appointment on the post of Lecturers in Business Administration, if they satisfy other conditions. In the light of these facts, it cannot be said that the respondents have changed the rules of game in the midst of the process of selection. The respondents have in continuation of earlier advertisement dated

21.09.2010, issued a fresh corrigendum [2025:RJ-JP:7343-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-553/2013] dated 29.10.2012 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Business Administration, from those who possess the qualification of M.B.A., which has been considered equivalent to M.Com. (Business Administration). That would only mean that the process of selection, which was initiated by original issued advertisement dated 21.09.2010, has been kept alive and would continue till complete exercise is undertaken by the R.P.S.C. after receiving fresh applications in response to the corrigendum dated 29.10.2012. The candidates who have already applied in response to earlier advertisement dated

21.09.2010, were not required to again apply pursuant to corrigendum dated 29.10.2012. This would entitle even petitioner no.4 Pratibha Meena in Writ Petition No.18837/2012 to also compete for appointment. The decision of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree, supra, was rendered in entirely different facts situation. Therein the earlier criteria providing 75 marks for written examination and 25 marks for interview, in the ratio of 3:1, was changed by prescribing 100 marks of written examination with 25 marks for interview, thus changing the ratio of such examination vis-a-vis interview to 4:1. That judgment does not deal with the situation where a corrigendum was issued inviting fresh applications in continuation with earlier advertisement. The action of the respondents merely gives opportunity to all those who are eligible to apply afresh regardless of whether they hold [2025:RJ-JP:7343-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-553/2013] the qualification of M.Com. (Business Administration) or MBA. This court is satisfied with the explanation furnished by the R.P.S.C. why corrigendum dated 29.10.2012 was issued. Issuance of the corrigendum even otherwise became necessary because the purpose of holding screening examination was shortlisting and that purpose was frustrated when ultimately only 15 candidates were found eligible as against 16 advertised vacancies. It is settled proposition of law that mere selection as such does not confer any right on the selected candidates for appointment. In the present case, the petitioners were not even selected. They were merely shortlisted for appointment and therefore, their right cannot even be taken to the same pedestal as that of the selected candidates. Petitioners merely have the right of consideration for appointment, so to say the right to compete with other eligible candidates appointment. That right of the petitioners has not been taken away by mere issuance of the corrigendum by the R.P.S.C. The corrigendum merely seeks to enlarge the scope of competition thereby bringing in more number of eligible candidates within the zone to compete with the petitioners for appointment. Such action of the respondents does not in any manner infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and [2025:RJ-JP:7343-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-553/2013] the same are dismissed, however, with the clarification that petitioner no.4 Pratibha Meena in Writ Petition No.18837/2012 would continue to remain eligible to compete for appointment on the post in question. Consequent upon dismissal of writ petitions, the stay applications, filed therewith, do not survive and same are also dismissed.” We have perused the record and also perused the corrigendum dated 29.10.2012 issued by the RPSC whereby the certain amendments were made in the original advertisement as well as the date for submitting the application was also extended by the RPSC, so that more eligible persons can compete and participate for selection on the post in question. We have considered the fact that the advertisement in question relates to the year 2013 and selections process have already been made, we do not see any good reason for interference in the selection process. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Seema/152