Rajasthan HC Questions State On Appointment Of Private Organisation As Exam Agency For Pollution Control Board Recruitment
The Rajasthan High Court recently ordered the State of Rajasthan to explain why it selected IBPS, a society registered in Bombay as a public trust over the State Public Service Commission (RPSC) when selecting an examination agency to fill openings for the positions of Legal Officer, Junior Scientific Officer, and Junior Environmental Engineer at the State Pollution Control Board.
The Bench of Justice Sameer Jain questioned why the authorities dealing with manpower empowerment, such as the RPSC and Staff Selection Board, were bypassed. “It is also to be specified in the said affidavit that when the court was seized with the matter, why the appointment process was continued, especially when important points of law were involved”, the Court directed the state to respond by filing an affidavit.
The Petitioner approached the High Court by claiming the concerned examination process was not transparent, being illegal and unfair. The advertisement was issued by the Pollution Control Board for the post of LO-II, JSO, JEE.
While hearing the petition the Court observed, that the recruitment process was carried out by MNIT previously. Thereafter, a deviation was adopted and instead of RPSC/Staff Selection Board, without any justifiable reason, IBPS was appointed as the examination agency, which is a society registered in Bombay as a public trust.
Further, it was explained by the learned counsel for the respondent Board that the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency Public Procurement Act, 2012 were followed in letter and spirit. Proceedings were carried out under the provisions of Section 31(h), whereby in an exceptional and emergent circumstance, a single procurement could be initiated qua the service.
The Court also questions, “Why despite the fact that transparency is key in examinations of a public nature, the requirements imposed vide the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Harkirat Singh Ghuman Vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court & Ors.: AIR 2020 SC 4060, was bypassed".
The respondent counsel had previously claimed that there was no such requirement to submit a model answer in the advertisement. Furthermore, that the candidates have not challenged the advertisement, and once the participants have formally entered the game, the rules cannot be changed.
The matter has been listed for the respondent's reply on March 22, 2024. Additionally, the petitioner has been directed to implead the Chief Secretary as a necessary party-respondent.
Cause Title: Narpat Surela v. State of Rajasthan & Connected Matters. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3567/2024)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Tribhuvan Narayan Singh, Sukhdev Singh Solanki, Ram Pratap Saini, Ribu Dutta, Vishwanath Karan Rathore and Arvind Rana.
Respondents: Advocates Bharat Vyas, Akhil Simlote, Sandeep Pathak, Rajendra Salecha and Priya P. Srivastava.
Click here to read/download Order
