[2023:RJ-JD:31888] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3029/2019 Ramkesh S/o Shri Ishwar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o VPO Dhamtan Sahib, Tehsil Narwara, District Jind (Haryana).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Zila Parishad, Barmer, Through Its Chief Executive Officer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG assisted with
Mr. Deepak Chandak
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
27/09/2023
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the list issued by the respondents providing posting to the candidates who have been selected for the appointment to the post of Teacher Grade - III (Level I).
2. The facts appertain are that the respondents had issued an advertisement dated 12.04.2018 for filling up the post of Teacher Grade - III (Level I).
3. The petitioner being an eligible candidate and desirous of appointment submitted an online application form on 27.04.2018 as an 'Unreserved and General category' candidate. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:39:33 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31888] (2 of 7) [CW-3029/2019]
4. Due to inadvertence or otherwise, in the column meant for 'Specially Abled Category', so also in the column meant for 'Apply for Special Education', the petitioner had indicated - 'Hearing Impairment'.
5. The petitioner had secured more marks than the cut - off of the General category candidates, hence in the result, which was declared on 01.06.2018, he was shown to be selected in 'Hearing Impaired' category.
6. Thereafter, in the list of candidates selected for document verification published by the respondents on 08.06.2018, the petitioner was allotted District Barmer.
7. The petitioner appeared for document verification, whereafter, when the list of candidates appointed was issued, he did not find his name, for which, the petitioner has approached this Court.
8. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards the copy of the application form and highlighted that so far as space given for the 'category' is concerned, the petitioner had indisputably written 'Unreserved' and it was due to confusion or misconception, he had written 'hearing impairment' in the column meant for 'Specially Abled Category'.
9. Learned counsel emphasised that the petitioner was conscious of this fact that he was not having any impairment or disability and also that he had to compete for the remaining seats or seats left for 'Unreserved Category'. Mr. Yadav submitted that the petitioner had indicated 'Hearing Impairment' in the column under a mistaken belief that in such column, he was supposed to (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:39:33 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31888] (3 of 7) [CW-3029/2019] write about the nature of special education. It was so felt because, the petitioner had studied and got training for teaching specially abled children of Hearing Impaired category, added Mr. Yadav.
10. Learned counsel submitted that when the lists were issued on 01.06.2018 and 08.06.2018, the petitioner did not realize that his selection has been made as a 'PH category' candidate. And when he appeared for document verification, obviously he could not and did not produce any disability certificate, for which his candidature seems to have been rejected.
11. Learned counsel argued that the purported error in filling up the application form was completely a bonafide mistake in understanding the details to be filled in the online application form, as he belong to Haryana and had no prior experience of filling form in Rajasthan. He argued that an inadvertent error cannot deprive the petitioner of his right of getting employment, when he is otherwise a meritorious candidate.
12. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent - State submitted that true it is, that the petitioner had filled in 'Unreserved' in the column meant for the category, but such column was designed only for the caste based reservation.
13. He submitted that petitioner ought to have been more vigilant and should not have shown himself to be a hearing impaired candidate by reflecting 'Hearing Impairment' in the column meant for 'Specially Abled Category'. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:39:33 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31888] (4 of 7) [CW-3029/2019]
14. It was further submitted by Mr. Sharma that the petitioner's claim made in the writ petition amounts to change in the category which is impermissible in the eye of law, more particularly, when the result has been declared and a select list has been issued.
15. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner ought to have noticed that the list dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure.5) which clearly indicated that the petitioner was selected as a PH category (Hearing Impaired) candidate. He added that similar was the position in list of allotment of districts dated 08.06.2018, issued by the respondents.
16. Learned counsel argued that a candidate who has not filled up the form carefully and has omitted to see the select list carefully cannot be granted indulgence at this stage, as any unwarranted sympathy would result in taking away right of another meritorious person who has been vigilant and careful in filling up the application form.
17. Learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the following judgments in support of his stand:-
(i) Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8900/2019, decided on 19.03.2021;
(ii) Sonal Tyagi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7840/2019, decided on 12.07.2019;
(iii) Laxmi Lata Barmaniya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3720/2022, decided on 21.03.2022.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:39:33 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:31888] (5 of 7) [CW-3029/2019]
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
19. So far as the judgments cited by Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General are concerned, the same are clearly distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as, in all the cases, the petitioners therein had prayed for correction in their application forms or they have prayed for consideration of their case in caste or class other than the one qua which the online application form was submitted.
20. The law is well settled that a candidate cannot change or pray for direction in his category so far as caste is concerned, more particularly, when the result has been declared. So is the position, when a candidate prays for change in his subject, because the declaration of result can change the entire dynamics and a person who has not been selected in the applied category or subject in which he had applied, can perceive or find an opportunity in other category or subject. But, in the instant case, as has been noticed hereinabove, the petitioner has not prayed for any change in his caste; he has prayed for correction or consideration of his candidature as a General category candidate and not as a PH category candidate.
21. So far as change of caste or subject is concerned, a candidate can have dual or more options and after the result is declared, a change can provide him or her better fortune but a candidate of PH category cannot find better opportunity nor can an otherwise healthy person can get any advantage by applying as (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:39:33 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31888] (6 of 7) [CW-3029/2019] PH category candidate because he has to establish more than 40% disability in order to secure appointment.
22. This Court is of the view that the petitioner's mistake in filling up the 'Hearing Impairment' in the column meant for 'Specially Abled Category' was a bonafide mistake. And the same was likely to occur considering that the petitioner wanted to apply for special education for Hearing Impaired candidates and because the petitioner had studied and was trained to instruct Hearing Impaired candidates.
23. Argument of Mr. Yadav that, having filled in 'Unreserved' category, the petitioner had staked his claim as a General category candidate appears to be attractive, but according to this Court, the column in which expression 'Unreserved' was filled in by the petitioner, was meant for caste based reservation or vertical reservation such as Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class (Non-creamy layer).
24. Be that as it may.
25. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is persuaded to grant indulgence to the petitioner for his bonafide mistake, inasmuch as by inscribing Hearing Impairment in the space meant for 'Specially Abled' category, the petitioner was not placed in any advantageous position. A candidate would certainly know that if he applied under the category of Physically Handicapped (Hearing Impaired), he has to prove that he is having more than 40% disability in his hearing.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:39:33 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:31888] (7 of 7) [CW-3029/2019]
26. It is noteworthy that on 27.02.2019, finding substance in petitioner's contention, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed a detailed interim order on 27.02.2019.
27. One post in 'Special Education - Hearing Impaired' category has been kept vacant by virtue of the aforesaid interim order. In the opinion of this Court, if the Court does not adopt sympathetic view or the State does not adopt pragmatic approach, the seat which has been kept vacant would lapse and nobody else can be accommodated against such unfilled seat.
28. In light of the discussion foregoing, the writ petition is allowed; the respondents are directed to consider petitioner's candidature as an 'Unreserved/General' category candidate (and not in Physically Handicapped candidate) for the post of Teacher Grade - III (Level I) Special Education - Hearing Impairment and issue an order of appointment if he is meritorious in 'Unreserved' category and is otherwise eligible.
29. As the petitioner himself lacked due diligence, he shall not be entitled for any benefits monetary or notional for the past period - petitioner's date of appointment shall be reckoned as 1st December, 2023 or the date he joins, whichever is earlier.
30. Needful be done within a period of 8 weeks from today.
31. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 79-akansha/Ramesh/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:39:33 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)