Rajasthan HC Rejects Doctor’s Challenge To 40% Interview Weightage, Finding She Hid Earlier Case And Filed Late

In brief

The question

1. Whether the 23 May 2022 notification and amended Rule 19 applied to a recruitment initiated by the advertisement of 27 November 2021.

The court held

It held that the amended Rule 19 did not apply retrospectively, the 40% interview allocation was not shown to be arbitrary or excessive, and Mathur was not entitled to relief because of non-disclosure, participation without objection, and delay and laches.

It also directed

The Court allowed both appeals, quashed and set aside the Single Judge’s judgment, and dismissed Mathur’s writ petition.

01Facts

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) advertised 337 Assistant Professor posts across 43 subjects on 27 November 2021.

p. 2

Dr. Rachita Mathur applied for Assistant Professor (Skin & VD), for which three posts were advertised.

p. 2

After the screening test was held in May 2022, the RPSC decided to allocate marks in the ratio of 40% for the screening test, 20% for academics and 40% for interview. On 23 May 2022, the State amended Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, limiting interview marks to 10% and introducing a written-examination-and-interview process.

pp. 2–4, 14–15, 18–19

Mathur sought to have the amended rule applied to the ongoing recruitment and challenged the selection process under Article 226. The Single Judge allowed her petition and directed the authorities to conclude the recruitment in accordance with the amended rule and notification. The State and RPSC appealed.

pp. 5–6

In the appeals, the appellants also relied on Mathur’s failure to disclose an earlier writ petition filed in 2023 concerning interview-mark weightage; the High Court found that this earlier proceeding had not been disclosed in her 2024 petition.

pp. 9–13

02Issues

i.1. Whether the 23 May 2022 notification and amended Rule 19 applied to a recruitment initiated by the advertisement of 27 November 2021.

pp. 14–17

ii.2. Whether allocating 40% of the selection marks to the interview was excessive or arbitrary.

pp. 23–24, 30–33

iii.3. Whether Mathur’s non-disclosure of her earlier writ petition, participation in the selection process, and delay in bringing her challenge disentitled her to relief.

pp. 9–13, 33–36

03Law Applied

Under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, recruitment rules govern according to their terms; unless an amendment is expressly retrospective, a selection is ordinarily governed by the rules in force when the recruitment begins, which commences with the advertisement and concludes when vacancies are filled.

pp. 15–19

The Court relied on Assam Public Service Commission v. Pranjal Kumar Sarma and Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan for that principle, and held that a change to the scheme of selection affecting candidates’ substantive rights is not merely procedural.

pp. 15–19

Under Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar, the weight assigned to interview marks is generally for the expert recruiting authority to determine, subject to review where the weight is excessive for an evident or proven oblique purpose or the process is arbitrary.

pp. 24–33

A litigant seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 must disclose material facts and approach the Court with clean hands; participation without timely objection may bar a later challenge, and unexplained delay may defeat relief.

pp. 10–13, 33–36

04Reasoning

Rule 19 was amended after the advertisement, and the amendment expressly came into force on publication rather than retrospectively. The amended rule also substantially changed the selection scheme by requiring a written examination and capping interview marks at 10%; the Court therefore held it could not govern this ongoing recruitment.

pp. 14–19

It found no basis to invalidate the 40% interview allocation: the RPSC had adopted the allocation as an expert body, there was no allegation of an oblique motive, and Mathur had not challenged the then-operative Rule 19, with which the advertisement conformed.

pp. 23–24, 30–33

Separately, Mathur’s prior writ petition was material and undisclosed; she had also participated in the screening test without objection and did not explain the delay in bringing her challenge. The Court held that these matters independently disentitled her to discretionary relief.

pp. 9–13, 33–36