Jai Singh and Others vs State and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—These petitions have been filed assailing techniques of scaling adopted by Rajasthan Public Service commission in evaluating answer sheets of competitive examination held for State & Subordinate services pursuant to advertisement dt. 01/06/2007.

In course of arguments, judgments have been cited by Respondents'' Counsel viz. (1) Mahesh Kr. Khandelwal v. State 1994(1) RLR 533; RPSC v. Ramesh Chand 1998 WLC 189, besides judgment dt. 14/06/2004 delivered by Division Bench of this Court in Manish Sinsinwar and Ors. v. RPSC and Anr. CWP (PIL) No. 368/2004 & Six cognate cases. Respondents'' Counsel jointly submit that in view of judgments (supra), technique of scaling adopted by PSC has been upheld by this Court and the question is no more res integra and does not require further consideration.

Per contra, Petitioner''s Counsel have placed reliance upon decisions in Sanjay Singh and Another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another, and latter judgment dt. 27/10/2009 of Division Bench in Sarita Naushad v. RPSC and Ors. Counsel submits that in view of judgment of Apex Court having been taken note of by Division Bench in latter judgment on which Respondents'' counsel placed reliance, are distinguishable and the issue having been raised in regard to technique of scaling adopted in process impugned requires consideration by this Court.

It would be relevant to observe that after the interim order was passed by this Court on 13/11/2009 in CWP-12924/2009 restraining the Respondents from making final appointment without seeking prior permission from this Court, Respondents at one stage preferred special appeal and also special leave to appeal before Supreme Court; and it was observed by Apex Court vide order dt. 27/09/2010 to dispose of writ petition expeditiously preferably within two months looking to nature of the controversy involved herein.

Taking note of submissions made (supra) and the controversy raised herein at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice and so also of the parties as well that these cognate cases are heard by Division Bench which alone can resolve the dispute finally from this Court. Before recording the order, this Court has taken the consent from Counsel for parties and they have consented, if matter is finally heard by Division Bench. Taking note whereof, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) to place these cognate matters before Hon''ble the Acting Chief Justice for seeking appropriate orders.