Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaishree Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 August, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10059/2021
Jaishree Purohit D/o Rajkumar Purohit W/o Kapildev Joshi, Aged
About 31 Years, Resident Of Brahm Baghechi Ke Piche, Nathusar
Bass, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
O Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for Mr. Pankaj
Sharma, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
26/08/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
that her marks of REET-2015 be considered in place of marks
obtained in REET-2017.
2. The precise facts germane for the present writ petition are
that the petitioner vied for the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II,
pursuant to advertisement dated 12.04.2018, issued for Non-TSP
area.
3. While submitting application form, due to inadvertence, she
had indicated her marks of REET-2017, which were 66.66%,
instead of marks of REET-2015, which were higher i.e. 74%.
4. Mr. Dinesh Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner inadvertently filled in the marks of REET-2017
(2 of 3) [CW-10059/2021]
though, she ought to have filled marks of REET-2015 being higher,
as was permissible according to the terms of the advertisement.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon
judgment dated 27.07.2018, passed by this Court in Beena
Kumari Damor Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10667/2018.
6. Mr. Deepak Chandak, learned counsel for the respondents,
on the other hand, submitted that so far as merits of the case is
concerned, may be, it is covered by the decision rendered in
Beena Kumari Damor (supra), however, petitioner is not entitled
for any relief as it suffers from inordinate delay and laches.
7. A perusal of factual backdrop of the present case reveals
that the select list so also the cut-off marks were declared in the
year 2018. In the opinion of this Court it was required of the
petitioner to have examined her form, at least, when the first cut-
off was declared, if not at the time of submitting application form.
8. The present petition has been filed after inordinate delay of
more than three years.
9. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the case of Beena Kumari Damor (supra) also an objection of
delay was raised by the respondents' counsel, however the same
was rejected by this Court and, therefore, in petitioner's case also
objection of delay needs to be overruled.
10. Mr. Ojha tried to explain petitioner's indolence by contending
that petitioner came in zone of consideration only after issuance of
second cut-off declared in December, 2018.
11. Heard.
12. It is noteworthy that even after declaration of second cut-off
list, the petitioner filed her first representation as late as on
(3 of 3) [CW-10059/2021]
07.04.2021 and took additional four months in preferring the
present writ petition, which came to be filed on 31.07.2021.
13. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has been sleeping
over the matter right since the beginning. If the candidate like
the petitioner is given any indulgence, at such belated stage, it
would adversely affect rights of other candidates, who are waiting
for employment.
14. So far as petitioner's contention regarding condonation of
delay in the case of Beena Kumar Damor (supra) is concerned, in
the opinion of this Court, condonation of delay or ignoring the
delay is a question of fact to be determined in each case. In the
extant factual matrix, the petitioner cannot claim parity for
condonation of delay, particularly when she has got up from her
slumber after three years from the date of declaration of cut-off.
15. This Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to the
petitioner, as the petition at hands suffers from delay and laches.
16. The writ petition is dismissed.
17. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
86-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
