Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harish Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 April, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
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.
(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
(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,
(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/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
