Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

State Of Rajasthan vs Kiran Kothari
2021 Latest Caselaw 11009 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11009 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Kiran Kothari on 16 July, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 509/2019

In

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8041/2018

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

----Appellants Versus Kiran Kothari W/o Shri Pankaj Vijayvergiya, D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Kothari, Village Babarana Tehsil Bhupalsagar, District Chittorgarh.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kamal Kishore Bissa for the State For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Bhati, Advocate Mr. Dilip Vyas, Advocate

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment / Order

16/07/2021

Appellant-State has filed the appeal challenging the order

dated 29.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby,

writ petition filed by the respondent, was allowed.

Learned State Counsel has submitted that the respondent

while filling her form had not deposited the requisite fee.

Consequently, the candidature of the respondent was rightly

rejected by the appellants.

Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the

respondent had filled her form for the post of Teacher Grade-III

Level-I in pursuance to the advertisement No. 01/2018 dated

(2 of 3) [SAW-509/2019]

12.04.2018. The online form submitted by the respondent was

duly accepted by the appellants. However, the name of the

respondent was not shown in the list of successful candidates for

Non-TSP area on 01.06.2018. Learned counsel for the respondent

has further submitted that in pursuance to the order passed by

the learned Single Judge, the requisite fee has already been

deposited by the respondent with the appellants.

Recruitment process was initiated for the post of Teacher

Grade-III Level-I in pursuance to the advertisement No. 01/2018

dated 12.04.2018. Respondent submitted online application form

on 25.04.2018 for the advertised post and the same was accepted

by the system without showing any error. However, later it

transpired that the respondent was required to deposit Rs.100/-

towards the fee, whereas, she had deposited only Rs.1/-.

Consequently, the candidature of the respondent was rejected.

Aggrieved against the rejection of her candidature, respondent

approached this Court by filing the writ petition. Learned Single

Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent vide

impugned order dated 29.08.2018. Hence, the present appeal by

the State.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going

through the record available on the file carefully, we are of the

opinion that the learned Single Judge had rightly allowed the writ

petition filed by the respondent. Admittedly, the online form

submitted by the respondent was duly accepted by the appellants.

Thus, any mistake in the application form did not come to the

notice of the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the

respondent is qualified and eligible for the appointment to the post

of Teacher Grade-III Level-I. Respondent had applied for the post

(3 of 3) [SAW-509/2019]

within the stipulated period. Cut-off marks for the General

Category (Female) is 74%, whereas, the respondent has secured

76.67% marks. Every recruitment process is started with a view

to employ meritorious candidates. Every endevour has to be made

that there is no compromise so far as merit is concerned.

Respondent is higher in merit than the cut-off marks of the

General Category (Female). Since, respondent is more meritorious

than the last selected candidate in the General Category (Female).

Learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the

respondent directing the appellants to consider the candidature of

the respondent in accordance with her eligibility and merit

otherwise and while considering her to have filled her application

form correctly. In terms of the impugned order dated 29.08.2018,

respondent has already deposited the requisite fee.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

                                   (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J                                         (SABINA),J

                                    Mohita/1









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter