Lack of Transparency in Recruitment Process Violates Fundamental Rights : Raj HC

Lack of Transparency in Recruitment Process Violates Fundamental Rights : Raj HC

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the failure to implement transparent procedures—such as not publishing the model answer key, failing to invite objections, and neglecting the formation of an expert committee—during government recruitment violates candidates' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

A single judge bench comprising Justice Sameer Jain emphasised that “it is duty of the exam conducting agency to maintain transparency and fairness in the recruitment process in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,” while hearing a batch of petitions filed by aspirants for posts such as Junior Scientific Officer (JSO), Junior Environment Engineer (JEE), and Legal Officer-II. These candidates contended that the recruitment process was opaque, biased, and conducted in haste, resulting in their exclusion from the provisional merit list.

The petitioners contended that public examinations must adhere to transparent practices, such as providing question booklets and OMR sheets to candidates, publishing provisional answer keys, and addressing objections before finalizing the answer key. They argued that these procedures were overlooked, especially since the examination was held online. Additionally, instead of engaging the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), the authorities chose to involve the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), allegedly hastening the process and undermining the fairness of the examination.

In addition, the court directed the State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), and the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (RSSB) to strictly follow the law and the Supreme Court's ruling in Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab and Haryana High Court & Ors. Furthermore, the court mandated the preparation of a new merit list within two months.

Significantly, the Supreme Court in Harkirat Singh Ghuman emphasized that to maintain transparency and fairness in public objective examinations, candidates should be given their OMR answer sheets and question booklets post-exam. A provisional answer key must be published, objections invited, and an expert committee should provide responses with justifications. Only after completing this process should the final score sheet or merit list be released. The court remarked that “This is one of the mechanisms by which fairness and transparency, which are essential in public employment, can be ensured.”

The court determined that the respondents’ approach violated the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act and disregarded established legal precedents, thus rendering the process unfair.

That albeit the confidentiality of the said examination was maintained, an efficacious, transparent manner as per the ratio encapsulated in Harkirat Singh Ghuman (Supra) was not followed. Moreover, the rules of business were also bypassed along with the provisions of Articles 309-311 of the Constitution of India and the legitimate expectation that is drawn as per Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India,” the court stated.

Regarding the candidates who have already been selected, issued appointment letters, and are serving as probationary trainees, the court directed that they shall not be required to refund any salary or benefits received, nor shall any recovery proceedings be initiated against them. These trainees will continue their service without disruption until the impartial outcome of the recruitment process, as directed by the court, is finalized. However, the court clarified that their services will not be confirmed until the unbiased recruitment result is published.

In conclusion, the court ordered the respondents to conduct the recruitment process anew, ensuring adherence to the 1993 Service Rules and the principles established in Harkirat Singh. The court further stated that if its directions are not complied with within the stipulated time, the entire selection process will be declared "null and void."

Cause Title: Narpat Surela v State of Rajasthan [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3567/2024]

 

 

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy