Sangeeta Tailor D/O Anil Kumar ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3481 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4551/2020

Sangeeta Tailor D/o Anil Kumar Tailor, aged About 28 Years, B/c
Tailor, R/o Ward No. 11, Vpo Maonda Khurd, Tehsil Neem Ka
Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
       Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2.     Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection
       Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Campus,
       Durgapura, Jaipur Through Chairman
3.     Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service
       Selection Board, State Agricultural Management Institute
       Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur
4.     Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through
       Secretary.
                                                                  ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1835/2020 Sarika Sharma D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Main Bus Stand Vpo Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Chairman, Rajasthan Sub-Ordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

2. Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-Ordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Dhand, Adv.

For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG
                                 Mr. Amit Lubhaya, Adv.
                                 Mr. M.F. Baig, Adv.



                                          (2 of 7)               [CW-4551/2020]


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

                                    Order

06/08/2021

1. In both these writ petitions since the relief claimed by the

petitioners is identical in nature and pertain to the self same

advertisement No.07/2018 dated 16.04.2018, hence with consent

of the parties, both these writ petitions have been heard together

and are being decided by the present order. The prayer made in

CWP-4551/2020 reads as under :-

"Hence prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further pleased to direct the respondents to change the Preference of the petitioner for her posting and appointment on the post of Clerk Gr. II in Government Secretariat from Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Ajmer and the respondents may kindly be directed to issue fresh appointment order of the petitioner on the post of Clerk Gr. II at Government Secretariat on the basis of her higher marks to meet the ends of justice.

For this act of kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray."

2. Brief & admitted facts of the case are that pursuant to the

advertisement issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Subordinate &

Ministerial Service Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred as

the "Board") dated 16.04.2018, both the petitioners applied for

the post of Clerk/L.D.C. Grade-II/Junior Assistant. As per the

scheme of examination floated under the advertisement, the

process of examination was divided in two phases; first phase for

written examination and second phase for typing test. As alleged

in the writ petition, the first phase of written examination was held

on 16.09.2018. However, a corrigendum came to be issued on

01.03.2019 regarding increase in the number of posts. The result

of first phase i.e. written examination was declared on 07.03.2019

(3 of 7) [CW-4551/2020]

and of second phase i.e. typing was declared on 25.10.2019,

however final result came to be issued on 14.02.2020.

3. The core issue which has been raised by the petitioners in

the present writ petitions is regarding change of their

preference/choice. Admittedly both the petitioners in their

preference/choice, submitted; first preference as 'RPSC', second

as 'Subordinate Departments of Rajasthan' and third as

'Government Secretariat'. The common grievance of both the

petitioners is that they may be allowed to change their preference

(first preference) i.e. from 'RPSC' to 'Government Secretariat'.

Before dealing with the arguments of either side, it would be

appropriate to make a mention of condition no.17 of the

advertisement which provides instructions for applying to seek

corrections in the online application form and reads as under:-

"यय य ययय ययययययय य यययय यययययय ययययय य यय la'kks/ku ययय य यययय य य य य य ययययय यययय ययययययय य य य ययययय यययययय यय यययययय 07 यययय य य यययय ययययययययय ययययय 300/- ययययय यययय यययययय ययययय ययय यययययय यय ययय य यय| यययययय ययययय ययय ययययययय य य य ययय, firk ds uke] ययय य य य ययय यय य यय ययय यय यययय य यययय यययययययययय यय ययय la'kks/ku ययय य य य ययययय| यययययय ययययय य यय la'kks/ku ययय य यय य la'kks/ku यययय ययययययययय ययय यय य यययय य यय यययययययय य यययययय ययययय यययय य य यययययययय य य य ययययय यय यययय| ययय य यययययय यययययय ययययय य यय ययय य यययययय यय la'kks/ku/यययययययय ययययययय यययय यययय ययययय ययय ययय यययय य य ययययय य य य यययययययय ययययययय यययययययय यय यययय|"

(4 of 7) [CW-4551/2020]

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the earlier

recruitment held in the year 2013, in which an amendment was

introduced by a further corrigendum, liberty was granted to the

applicants for change of their preference/choice whereas in the

present matter though further corrigendum was issued by the

respondent but no liberty has been granted to the applicants for

change in their preference/choice and the said action of the

respondent in not allowing for change of preference/choice after

issuance of further corrrigendum is arbitrary in nature. Counsel

further submitted that the posts are still lying vacant in the

Government Secretariat and if the petitioners are allowed to

change their first preference as Government Secretariat in place of

RPSC-earlier filled, no prejudice is going to be caused to the other

candidates as the number of vacancies have been increased by

issuance of a further corrigendum with regard to the category wise

posts. Counsel further submitted that while considering the

candidates for appointment, allocation of department for posting

shall be made based on merit-cum-preference of the candidates

and according to the petitioners' counsel the candidates who have

secured lesser merit have been given appointment and posting at

Government Secretariat while the petitioners have been denied

the same and such action of the respondents is arbitrary in

nature. Counsel further submitted that if the petitioners are not

allowed to change their preference/choice, their future prospectus

would be adversely affected and lastly prayed that the petitioners

be permitted to change their preference/choice from 'RPSC' to

Government Secretariat and be posted accordingly.

5. In support of submissions, counsel for the petitioners placed

reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court at

(5 of 7) [CW-4551/2020]

Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of State of Raj. & Anr. Vs.

Datar Singh, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.875/2012 &

other connected matters, decided on 31.07.2013 and also in the

matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kirti, D.B. Civil Special

Appeal No.808/1997 & other connected matter, decided on

07.12.2001. Counsel further relied on the judgment passed by

the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kavita

Choudhary Vs. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High

Court, Jodhpur, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)

No.1700/2017, decided on 01.11.2017.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted

that being conscious of the fact that any error may occur while

submitting the online application form, sufficient opportunity was

provided to the applicants under clause-17 of the advertisement

prescribing a time limit of 7 days for seeking correction in the

online application form but in the present matter both the

petitioners failed to submit the application seeking correction in

their online application form regarding change of their preference/

choice within the time limit stipulated under clause-17 of the

advertisement and therefore at this belated stage they are not

entitled to be permitted to make the corrections as prayed for in

their preference/choice, contrary to the terms and conditions of

the advertisement. Counsel further submitted that the Board is

bound to complete the selection process as per the terms and

conditions of the advertisement & also in a time bound manner.

7. In support of the submissions, counsel for the respondents

relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,

reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 and further relied upon the

(6 of 7) [CW-4551/2020]

judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter

of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Yogita

Yaduvanshi, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.804/2020,

decided on 19.03.2021 wherein the earlier judgments passed in

the matter of Kavita Choudhary (supra), Sonal Tyagi Vs.

State of Raj. & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7840/2019,

decided on 12.07.2019 & Piyush Kaviya & Ors. Vs. RPSC &

Ors., D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.198/2018, decided on

10.04.2018, have been considered by the Division Bench of this

Court and while allowing the appeal filed by the RPSC held that

the applicant-writ petitioner since failed to seek online correction

within the period stipulated in the advertisement, the writ petition

filed by the applicant-writ petitioner was liable to dismissed and

was accordingly dismissed.

8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record

including the judgments cited above by the parties.

9. Both the writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly it is for the recruiting authority

to lay down the norms/terms & conditions in the advertisement

and in the present matter, the recruiting authority being conscious

of the fact that any error may occur in submitting the online

application form, sufficient opportunity of seven days was made

available to the applicants under clause-17 of the advertisement

to make corrections in the online application form; secondly once

the petitioners have participated in the selection process they are

estopped to challenge the same; thirdly admittedly the petitioners

failed to submit application for seeking correction/change in their

preference/choice within a period of seven days as stipulated

under clause-17 of the advertisement; lastly in view of the recent

(7 of 7) [CW-4551/2020]

judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter

of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Yogita

Yaduvanshi (supra), in my view the petitioners are not entitled

to the relief as prayed for in the present writ petitions.

10. In that view of the matter, the present writ petitions fail and

are hereby dismissed.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

JYOTI /211-212

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)