Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 943   OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.18510/2012)

HARI KISHAN                             Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.                Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 944    OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18511/2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 945-948    OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.18512--18515/2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 949    OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18516/2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 950    OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18517/2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 951    OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18518/2012)

O R D E R

1. Leave is granted in all the matters.

2. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties at length.  

3. By  our  order  dated  16.1.2013,  we  had  

expressed the opinion that all candidates, who were  

shown to have passed the preliminary examination in

Page 2

2

the initial (original) declaration of result as also  

those  declared  successful  on  the  basis  of  the  

revised result, ought to be permitted to sit in the  

written examination.  We had also made it clear that  

the  candidates  who  had  succeeded  in  the  first  

preliminary examination but had been excluded on the  

basis  of  the  subsequent  exercise,  shall  also  be  

permitted to sit in the written examination.  We had  

also  requested  the  High  Court  of  Rajasthan  to  

conduct the entrance examination for entry into the  

Rajasthan Judicial Services in future. Furthermore,  

we had requested the High Court to take over the  

responsibility  of  holding  the  written  examination  

for the present selection also.  

4. In response to our request, the High Court of  

Rajasthan  has  filed  an  affidavit  on  24.1.2013  

through its Registrar. It has been stated in the  

affidavit that pursuant to this Court's order dated  

16.1.2013, a meeting of the Full Court was convened  

to consider two issues, namely:  

(i)  whether  the  High  Court  at  

present would be in a position to conduct

Page 3

3

the Main Examination, 2011 or not?

(ii)  secondly, whether the High  

Court  would  be  able  to  equip  its  

Examination Cell adequately  to conduct  

the  entrance  examination  for  the  

Rajasthan Judicial Services in the near  

future or not?    

5. The affidavit points out that in the present  

selection  process,  the  number  of  candidates  that  

would be eligible to appear in the Main Examination,  

would be approximately 3894. The written examination  

will have to be simultaneously conducted at Jodhpur  

and Jaipur. However, according to the affidavit, the  

Examination Cell of the High Court does not have the  

staff for conduct of the examination. The High Court  

has, therefore, expressed its inability to conduct  

the written  examination for  the current  selection  

process.  

6. At the same time it is pointed out by the  

High Court that the selection of officers to the  

Rajasthan  Judicial  Services  has  been  extremely  

delayed and there is an acute shortage of judicial  

officers.  It  is,  therefore,  suggested  that  the

Page 4

4

Rajasthan Public Service Commission be permitted to  

conduct  the  written  examination  for  the  present  

selection process, to avoid any further delay. The  

High Court has also pointed out that even in future,  

the examination can only be held by the High Court  

provided  the  necessary  infrastructure  is  created.  

For this purpose, the High Court will forward the  

necessary  proposal  to  the  State  Government  for  

sanction  of  necessary  funds  and  for  creating  

adequate infrastructure.   

7. Keeping the aforesaid facts and circumstances  

in  view,  we  have  no  option  but  to  direct  the  

Rajasthan  Public  Service  Commission  to  hold  the  

written examination  for the  present selection.  We  

further direct that on the necessary proposal being  

received by the State of Rajasthan, the same would  

be  examined  with  a  sense  of  urgency  and  an  

appropriate decision taken to provide the necessary  

infrastructure  to  the  High  Court  for  holding  the  

future examinations for recruitment to the Rajasthan  

Judicial Services.  

8. With regard to the candidates to be permitted

Page 5

5

to sit in the written examination, it is directed  

that  all  the  candidates  who  have  passed  in  the  

original preliminary examination, shall be allowed  

to sit in the written examination. In other words,  

those candidates who had succeeded in the original  

preliminary examination  and have  been excluded  on  

the  basis  of  the  subsequent  exercise,  shall  be  

permitted to sit in the written examination.  

9. We do not find any justification for making  

any further amendment to the category of candidates  

to be permitted to sit in the written examination,  

as suggested by the applicants in I.A. Nos.2, 3 & 4.  

10. We are constrained to place the limit on the  

candidates to take the written examination in view  

of the statement made by  Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned  

Additional Solicitor General. According to him, the  

Rajasthan Public Service Commission is required to  

call fifteen times the number of candidates to the  

number of posts to be filled. In the present case,  

there  are  114  vacancies.  Therefore,  strictly  

speaking, only 1710 candidates could be permitted to  

sit  in  the  written  examinations.  However,  as  a

Page 6

6

result of the addition of the candidates after the  

second exercise, the number of candidates have now  

increased to about 1900.

11. In view of the above, we are not inclined to  

accept  the  submissions  made  by  the  applicants  in  

I.A.  Nos.2,  3  &  4.  Accordingly,  these  I.As.  are  

dismissed. Let the written examinations be conducted  

by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the  

manner  indicated  above,  within  a  period  of  two  

months from today.  The result thereof be declared  

positively within a period of one month thereafter.  

12. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.  

.........................J (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

...........................J (M.Y. EQBAL)

New Delhi; January 30, 2013.