BENCH AT JAIPUR v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan Police Academic Nehru Nagar, Panipech, Rajasthan Police Academic Road, Jaipur.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, (Rpsc) Ghooghra Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Akshit Gupta, Advocate. Ms. Pragya Seth, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig, Advocate assisted by Mr. Govind Gupta, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR 20/03/2025 Order This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 26.07.2023 whereby writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10.02.2016, the petitioner applied for the [2025:RJ-JP:12855-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-731/2023] post of Senior Scientific Officer (Toxicology Division). Candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent-RPSC vide letter dated 19.09.2016 on account of not having requisite education qualification for the post in question. Counsel for the appellant contended before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was having requisite qualification and experience for the post in question. However, the respondents have committed wrong in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that clarification has been issued by the experts after issuance of the advertisement. Before the learned Single Judge, the respondent-RPSC submitted the reply to the writ petition wherein in para nos.3 and 9, it has been mentioned as under:- “3. That the contents of para No.3 of the writ petition are replied in the terms that the advertisement dated 10.2.2016 has been issued by respondent No.3 and thereby applications were invited from the eligible candidates from the various posts under Rajasthan Forensic Science Service Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred as rule 1979) and for other services in which 18 posts of Senior Scientific Officer of various division specified against each post from serial number 1 to 8 under rule 1979. That as per rules 1979 for direct recruitment for the aforesaid post are given under rule 17 to 21 and according to that applications required to invite in the form of application and after the scrutiny of application from the authorities required to prepare list of candidates for recommendation. The qualification for the aforesaid post is given in rule 12(i) of Rules 1979. The rule 12 is reproduce as under:-

12. Academic and Technical Qualification and Experience:- A candidates for direct recruitment to the posts specified in the Schedule shall, in addition to such experience as is required, possess. [2025:RJ-JP:12855-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-731/2023] (i) the qualifications given in column 4 of the schedule, and (ii) "working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthan culture." That the qualification prescribed in the scheduled for the post is mentioned before the coloum number 4 against the each of the post. That in the advertisement dated 10.2.2016 specific qualification was mentioned against each category related to the post as per rules and scheduled, by which it has been specific made clear that M.Sc. in second divisions along with two years experience of working in forensic science laboratory of a State or Centre Govt. or similar experience in the public undertaking or corporation. As such by the advertisement dated 10.2.2016 it is crystal clear that two years experience is required in the field of in which candidate applied for the concerned post as if, a person applied for Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry division) he is required to two years experience of working in forensic science laboratory of a State or Centre Government or similar experience in the public undertaking or corporation in the same field and stream of concerned field/division for which post he applied. In the present matter petitioner is not having requisite field/stream/division. It is applied for all vacancies advertised from serial number 1 to 8 respectively. The petitioner is not having requisite experience for the said post therefore, vide letter dated 06.9.2016 his candidature has been rejected which is marked as Annexure-9 in the writ petition as in impugned order. The petitioner is having work experience of lab assistant (photo) in CFSC Laboratory (CBI). The said experience is not deemed to be experience for the chemistry division therefore, candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected. experience

9. That the contents of para No.10 of the writ petition are replied in the terms that vide letter dated 06.9.2016 candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by the RPSC for the reason that he was not having requisite qualification for the post he applied. It will be pertinent to mention that Director State Forensic [2025:RJ-JP:12855-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-731/2023] Science Laboratory Rajasthan made it clear in its letter dated 31.5.2016 that the qualification for the direct recruitment for the post as M.Sc. in second divisions and two years experience of working in forensic science laboratory of a State or Centre Government or similar experience in the public undertaking or corporation and by the same it made clear that experience is required to be the division specific to the post and not the experience of any other division of FSL and by the same attention of the RPSC has been drawn to the fact that while scrutinizing the application this fact may be kept in view while making division wise selection. The copy of letter dated 31.5.2016 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R/1.” Learned Single Judge after considering the case of the petitioner, reply submitted on behalf of respondent-RPSC and arguments advanced by the petitioner held as under:- “8. Perusal of the terms and conditions mentioned in the advisement and the Rules of 1979 clearly indicates that for getting the appointment on the post of Senior Scientific Officer, Chemistry Toxicology or Chemistry Divisions, the candidate must possess masters degree in Physics/Chemistry as the case may be from any University established by law in India and two years experience of working in FSL of the State or Central Government or similar experience in Public Undertaking or Corporation. 9. This is an admitted fact that the petitioner Rishi Kesh has working experience in a CFSL in Photo Division and he is seeking appointment in Toxicology Division in which he has qualified and passed the examination. Though, the Rules of 1979 are not clear and specific about the aforesaid experience of a particular division that is why a clarification was sought by RPSC from State FSL regarding the requisite experience for getting the appointment on the posts in question. In response to the said query, the Director, State FSL clarified the fact that “the experience is required to be of the division specific to the post and not the experience of any other division of FSL. This fact may kindly be kept in view while scrutinizing the [2025:RJ-JP:12855-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-731/2023] applications and making the Division-wise selection”. 10. Since the Rules of 1979 were not clear and the specific with regard to the requirement of working experience in a particular Division, hence, in the subsequent selection process of the year 2019, the following clarification was issued:- “The provisions contemplated in the Schedule are apparent in itself, which requires two years experience of working in a FSL of State or Central Government or in public similar undertaking or corporation (except SSO, Photo Division) only, it does not envisages for specifying the same can be division basis” experience statutory

11. Perusal of the aforesaid clarification also indicate that experience of two division i.e. SSO and Photo Division were not included for getting appointment in other Divisions. And the petitioner Rishi Kesh does not have working experience of the Division Toxicology and has experience of Photo Division. Hence, he is not entitled to get the benefit of this clarification issued by the State FSL. 12. Similarly, the petitioner Ravi Kumar is trying to seek appointment on the post of Senior Scientist Officer in Chemistry Division on the basis of his working experience in Vedanta, a Unit of Hindustan Zink Limited. His experience certificate dated 07.09.2005 indicates that he worked in the said organization on the post of Junior Executive Process. His experience certificate does not specify that he has working experience in the Chemistry Division. 13. Forensic evidence plays a crucial role in criminal investigation. It helps to identify suspects, establish the facts of a case and link suspects to the crime scene. Forensic Science is to solve a case on the basis of connected evidence collected. The collection, analysis and interpretation of Forensic evidence training and requires specialized experience, which is provided by Forensic experts. 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Maharashtra Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Shriram (Civil Appeal Warade and Ors. No.4597/2019) has held that essential qualifications for appointment on the post Public [2025:RJ-JP:12855-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-731/2023] are for the employer to decide. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirement of a candidate must possess accordingly to the needs of the employers and nature of work. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility. The question of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. 15. Since both the petitioners are not having the requisite experience of Toxicology and Chemistry Divisions, hence, the respondents have not committed any error in not considering their case for their appointment on the advertised posts.” Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the appellant was not having the requisite qualification as prescribed under the advertisement as well as the rules. Further, the respondent-RPSC has sought clarification from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur and according to experts, the experience is required to be of “division specific to the post and not the experience of any division of FSL”. Since the petitioner was not having the experience of division ‘toxicology’ for which post the advertisement was issued by the respondent-RPSC, in our considered view, no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. In that view of the matter, the appeal in hand stands dismissed accordingly. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/65