Kavita vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 18715 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 18715 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 December, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kavita vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 2021

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1923/2021

Kavita D/o Shri Ram Pratap, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Serda, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devi Lal Mothsra. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

09/12/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction to the respondents to call the petitioner for document

verification and appoint the petitioner as Teacher Grade III (Level

I) with all consequential benefits.

It is inter-alia indicated in the writ petition that petitioner

had participated in the selection process pursuant to the

advertisement dated 12.04.2018, the petitioner, though was

selected as per the list dated 08.05.2019 (Annex.3), the petitioner

was unaware of such selection and did not participate in the

document verification/counselling.

(2 of 4) [CW-1923/2021]

Whereafter, the respondents had issued another list dated

29.12.2020 (Annex.4), wherein, candidates having obtained

marks less than the petitioner in her category, have been called

for document verification and becoming aware of the same, the

petitioner approached the respondents for permitting the

petitioner to be considered in the said list, however, when the

same was not permitted, the petitioner filed the present writ

petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that

action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to

participate in document verification etc. despite having higher

marks than the candidates, who have been called by the list dated

29.12.2020 (Annex.4), is not justified.

Submissions have been made that when the initial list was

issued, the petitioner was unaware of the same and could not

participate pursuant to the same and, therefore, as the

respondents accorded appointments to persons lower in merit, she

may also be accorded appointment.

Reliance has been placed on Smt. Seema Parsoya v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 13530/2017, decided

on 27.11.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

the candidates have participated in the document verification,

pursuant to the notice issued by the State, and for no specific

reason, the petitioner failed to participate in the counselling meant

for the purpose.

Whereafter, a fresh list of reserve candidates was issued and

pursuant thereto appointments have also be made and, therefore,

the petitioner now is not entitled to any relief.

(3 of 4) [CW-1923/2021]

Reliance have been placed on judgment in Ashok Kumar

Patidar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.3553/2021, decided on 22.03.2021.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

No specific reason, except for unawareness of issuance of the

list with regard to the recruitment, has been indicated by the

petitioner in the writ petition and now she is seeking appointment,

based on the fact that in the reserve list candidates lower in merit

than petitioner have been called.

The petitioner, at her turn did not appear for the document

verification/counselling and as such, her appointment came to be

cancelled and instead candidates standing in reserve list were

accorded appointment, as is apparent from the list dated

18.01.2021 (Annex.7) filed with the writ petition.

Merely because candidates having obtained marks lower than

the petitioner have been accorded appointment, cannot be a

reason for the petitioner to seek appointment, having missed the

bus at the relevant time.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Patidar

(supra), in almost similar circumstances, came to the following

conclusion:-

"In considered opinion of this Court, a candidate, who is not willing to accept the appointment and who himself chooses to remain in oblivion, cannot invoke equity of this Court, simply because some seats are lying vacant.

Neither the State can be expected to keep the seats vacant for a lethargic candidate, nor can the candidate's inaction be ignored/pardoned merely because the seats are yet vacant.

During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgment of this Court in the case of Jiya Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.10796/2018), decided on 25.07.2018 and

(4 of 4) [CW-1923/2021]

submitted that petitioner be given one more chance to appear for document verification.

In considered opinion of this Court the judgment of Jiya Devi (supra) was passed on 25.07.2018, when the process of LDC recruitment was still underway; whereas in the present case the petitioner has approached this Court after completion of recruitment process and issuance of final select list.

Even if the arguments of Mr. Jangid is accepted, in considered opinion of this Court the stage to seek relief has already passed. Now the process is continuing only for the candidates, whose names were in reserve list/waiting list.

Petitioner's fate has been decided by the respondents about three years back; he does not have any legal right to claim indulgence at this stage.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.

Stay application too stands dismissed."

The said judgment applies on all force to the facts of the

present case. So far as the judgment relied by learned counsel for

the petitioner in the case of Smt. Seema Parsoya (supra) is

concerned, the same pertains to recruitment, where the list was

issued after four years of the initiation of the recruitment process,

wherein, the Court granted the indulgence, which order is

distinguishable on account of its peculiar facts.