Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shrawan Kumar Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 February, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2782/2021
Shrawan Kumar Vishnoi S/o Shri Poonama Ram, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Gudhamalani , Distt. Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Medical Health And Family Welfare, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Special Secretary To Government, Medical Health And
Family Welfare Department And Mission Director -Nhm,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.R. Khileri for Mr. Mahaveer
Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
25/02/2021
1. Petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to
consider his candidature under the OBC-non-creamy layer
category instead of OBC-creamy layer category.
2. The facts lie in a narrow compass.
3. The respondent-State published an advertisement dated
31.08.2020, inviting applications from eligible candidates for
recruitment on 6310 contractual posts of Community Health
Officer under the National Health Mission Scheme.
4. The petitioner submitted his application form on 20.09.2020
and showed his category as OBC-creamy layer.
(2 of 4) [CW-2782/2021]
5. The petitioner could not figure in the list of provisionally
selected candidates, which was published on 16.01.2021.
6. According to the petitioner, she has made oral as well as
telephonic request to the respondents to consider her candidature
under the OBC-non-creamy layer category, but no heed has been
paid for which he was constrained to approach this Court for the
relief as claimed.
7. Mr. Khileri, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
while submitting his application form, due to mistake of person
manning E-Mitra, petitioner has been shown to belong from OBC-
creamy layer category and in both the relevant clauses, incorrect
particulars have been filled in, whereas the petitioner, as a matter
of fact, falls under OBC-non-creamy layer category.
8. Inviting Court's attention towards certificate dated
14.09.2020, learned counsel submitted that the fact that the
petitioner belongs to OBC-non-creamy layer category is not in
dispute and the inadvertent human error, that too, committed by
the E-Mitra operator should not come in way of petitioner's rightful
claim of consideration under OBC-non-creamy layer category.
9. Heavy reliance was placed upon the judgment dated
01.11.2017 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of
Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan
High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. (DBSAW No.1700/2017).
10. Learned counsel argued that if the petitioner is considered
under OBC-non-creamy layer category, he is sure to get
selected/appointed and hence, he sought a direction to the
respondents to consider his candidature under OBC-non-creamy
layer category, while maintaining that consideration of petitioner's
(3 of 4) [CW-2782/2021]
candidature under OBC-non-creamy layer category will not
adversely affect anybody's rights, inasmuch as the final select list
has not been issued as yet.
11. While maintaining that the category once filled in, cannot be
changed, Ms. Vandana Bhansali, learned counsel for the
respondent-State highlighted that the respondents have issued
press release dated 18.09.2020 followed by 21.09.2020 and
permitted all the candidates to edit their application form after
furnishing a requisite fee of Rs.100/-.
12. According to her, firstly the petitioner ought to have been
vigilant and when such indulgence was granted, he ought to have
done the needful. Having failed to avail the opportunity, her
request of consideration of her candidature under OBC-non-
creamy layer category cannot be accepted.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon judgment of
this Court rendered in case of Pritam Kunwar Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2018 (2) RLW 1347(Raj.).
14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of
the view that the Division Bench judgment rendered in case of
Kavita Choudhary (supra) is not of much help to the petitioner,
particularly when the respondents themselves have granted an
opportunity to all the candidates to edit their application form and
carry out requisite amendment if there was any error; whereas
such opportunity was not granted by the State in case of Kavita
Choudhary (supra).
15. That apart, this Court in its judgment dated 04.08.2017, in
Pritam Kunwar (supra) after considering almost all the judgments
on the issue has held that a candidate cannot claim change of
(4 of 4) [CW-2782/2021]
category once the process has reached at a substantially advanced
stage.
16. In the present case, the provisional select list has been
issued and perhaps that is when, the petitioner realised that had
he applied under the OBC-non-creamy layer category, he would
have secured berth in the select list.
17. The petitioner having failed to take due care and to avail
opportunity to amend/edit his application form has also not even
filed any representation before the issuance of provisional select
list. Thus, he cannot be granted any relief at this stage.
18. For the reasons above mentioned, the present petition,
therefore, fails.
19. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
68-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
