HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4822/2021 Harish Kumar S/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Darji, R/o Village Manethi, Post Kund, Tehsil And Dist. Rewari, Haryana.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Zila Parishad, Through Chief Executive Officer, Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary for Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 07/04/2021
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer to issue direction to the respondents to consider his candidature, as he could not appear for document verification, pursuant to notice dated 19.05.2019.
2. The facts appertain are that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III, Level-1 advertised for non-TSP Area, pursuant to recruitment notification dated 12.04.2018.
3. The petitioner could not secure place in the first provisional select list issued by the respondents on 02.06.2018. (Downloaded on 08/04/2021 at 08:54:10 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-4822/2021]
4. Thereafter, the respondents operated waiting list and by way of notice dated 19.05.2019, invited the candidates to appear for verification of the documents.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that in absence of requisite publicity, the petitioner, who is residing in Haryana, could not know that the respondents are operating the waiting list and his roll number has been reflected therein.
6. The petitioner has now learnt that on account of non- appearance in the document verification, which was held on 29.05.2019, his candidature has been rejected and the list of remaining candidates has been recommended to the State Government for appointment.
7. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that it was incumbent upon the respondents to have issued press release or a public notice so that the candidates of the waiting list could be informed of their inclusion and also about the date of appearance in the further process of recruitment. According to him, since no publicity worth the name was given, petitioner residing in Haryana could not appear in the document verification on 29.05.2019.
8. A prayer has been made that the respondents be directed to consider his candidature, may be after the list recommended pursuant to the subject waiting list is exhausted and seats remain unfilled.
9. Mr. Kailash Choudhary, associate to Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG, opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submitted that it was required of all the candidates including petitioner to keep an eye over the official website of the respondents. It was pointed out that apart from uploading a notice in the official website, an e-mail (Downloaded on 08/04/2021 at 08:54:10 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-4822/2021] was also sent to the petitioner at the e-mail ID given by him in his application form and thus, the respondents have done more than what was expected of them.
10. It was argued by Mr. Choudhary that since the petitioner has failed to appear in document verification, the person next in merit has been given appointment. He added that as a matter of fact, petitioner's selection stood cancelled on account of non- appearance and hence, no indulgence can be granted to him at this stage. Mr. Choudhary relied upon a judgment of this Court dated 22.03.2021 rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Patidar Vs. State & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3553/2021.
11. In rejoinder, Mr. Ojha, submitted that the address at which the mail was sent, is incorrect inasmuch as, the letters have been written in upper case (capital).
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the respondents have duly published the intimation of issuance/operating waiting list in its official website and have also sent individual e-mails to all the candidates.
13. Petitioner's contention that the respondents have sent mail at a wrong address, cannot be countenanced, particularly when he himself had given incorrect e-mail ID, i.e. [email protected] The respondents were justified in sending the mail at such address.
14. That apart, petitioner's roll number was included in the list dated 15.05.2019 and recommendation in furtherance of such list has been sent way back in 2019 itself. Whereas, the petitioner has woken up from his slumber and has approached the Court by way of filing a writ petition on 15.03.2021. In the opinion of this Court, (Downloaded on 08/04/2021 at 08:54:10 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-4822/2021] the petitioner has been lax and indolent towards his rights and hence, no indulgence can be granted to him, at such a belated stage.
15. The writ petition, therefore, fails.
16. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 56-skm/-
(Downloaded on 08/04/2021 at 08:54:10 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)