Rajasthan High Court

Mukesh Kumar S/O Shri Ramlal ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 7 July, 2021

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12771/2020

Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramlal Gurjar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Near Of Water Works, Gurjar Colony, G.t. Road, District Dholpur
(Raj.)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.      The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
        Department Of Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
        Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
        Its Secretary.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, through VC.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig.

Mr. B.S. Choudhary, Dy. G.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order

07/07/2021

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"In these circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this writ petition and

i) the impugned rejection letter dated 08.10.2020 denying correction in application of petitioner for addition of Non-Gazetted employee category may kindly be declared as illegal and arbitrary therefore, it may kindly be quashed and set aside;

ii) the respondents may kindly be directed by writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof,

a) to add the category of Non-Gazetted Employee (NGE) in the application form of petitioner;

b) to consider the candidature of petitioner as MBC (Non-creamy) category and Non-Gazetted Employee category candidate at the time of declaring the final result of RAS & RTS Examination, 2018;

c) to consider the candidature of petitioner as MBC (Non-creamy) category and Non-Gazetted Employee category candidate in further selection process of RAS & RTS Examination, 2018;

d) to give appointment to humble petitioner as per his merit with all consequential relief;

(2 of 4) [CW-12771/2020]

iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-RPSC

vide order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure-17) allowed the change of

category from OBC to MBC, however, no such opportunity was given

to the candidates like petitioner for changing of category. Counsel

further submits that the result of interview has not been declared as

yet, therefore, prayed that he may also be allowed to change his

category in view of the order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the

respondent-RPSC.

3. Counsels for the respondents have opposed the writ petition

and submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition has already

been considered and decided by the Division Bench of this court at

Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter of Piyush Kaviya & Ors Vs.

RPSC & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.198/2018 along with other

connected matters) vide judgment dated 10.04.2018 where in paras

No.20, 24, 25, 29, 31 & 32, it has been held as under:-

"20. From the facts noted hereinabove the factual position which clearly emerges is that when the Commission issued the advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates on 28.4.2016, it categorically made known to the candidates that online applications had to be submitted between 10th May, 2016 till mid- night of 25th June, 2016 and further that amendments could be made in the on-line application forms submitted between 26.6.2016 till the mid-night of 25.7.2016 and by way of special information it was made known that no amendment to the on-line applications would be entertained after the last date indicated in the advertisement by which the amendment in the on-line applications could be made had elapsed.

Thus, the decision taken by the Commission on 7th May, 2015 for not permitting any amendment in the on-line application forms to be made after the last date notified to the

(3 of 4) [CW-12771/2020]

candidates by which amendment could be made had elapsed was made known to the candidates.

24. A plain reading of Note No.5 makes it very clear that attention of the candidate, to whom the admission card was issued, is drawn to the fact that he should check up the particulars mentioned in the admission card and this would obviously means the particulars as mentioned by the candidate in his application form. If there is any discrepancy the same should be brought to the notice of the Commission and that said exercise must be completed before the date of the final examination, evinced by the wording of the Note i.e. after the date of the examination no application for correction shall be entertained.

25. In view of the unambiguous and clear language in the advertisement which gave one month time after the last date for submitting on-line applications for corrections to be made and clearly indicated that no application for correction in the on-line application forms would be accepted thereafter, there is no scope to interpret Note No.5 in the admit card as done by the learned Single Judge. That apart the language of the Note admits of no two interpretations. The language is clear. It permits the applicants to bring to the notice of the Commission any error in the admit card concerning the candidate and said error has to be a mismatch between the particulars disclosed by the candidate in the on-line application and admit card. Thus, the question of any promissory estoppel binding the Commission does not arise.

29. It needs to be highlighted that seeking public employment the number of applicants swell into thousands for every appointment offered. The cumbersome process of processing the applications manually and at each stage of the selection process manual intervention being time consuming, aid of technology is being taken. On-line applications are being received. Opportunities to correct mistakes in the on-line application forms are provided by opening a window period. When the window period closes, the forms, applications etc. as amended are processed. The computer generates the admit cards. The results of the examination are fed in the computer for various categories of posts and in the instant case, the number being 30, select list based on merits and categories are generated by the computer. The candidates need to be vigilant and specially when, as in the instant advertisement, they were cautioned time and again to check their particulars and a

(4 of 4) [CW-12771/2020]

window period within which corrections could be made was made available to the candidates.

31. Thus, the conflict between merit and public interest subserved by timely filling up of public posts has to be balanced. The balance is stuck in the instant case by giving a window period to the candidates to correct the on-line application forms. The balance was stuck by prohibiting any application to be submitted after last date notified.

32. The writ petitioners were negligent. They never disclosed in the on-line application forms submitted that they were non-gazetted Government employees. Thus, it was too late in the day for them to seek change in the category in which they had applied after the admit cards were issued by informing the Commission that they were non-gazetted Government employees."

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. In my considered view, the issue involved in this writ petition is

covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court

at Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter of Piyush Kaviya (supra)

wherein the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petitions

filed on behalf of the candidates with regard to change of their

category at a belated stage.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not

inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed.

8. All the pending applications stand disposed of.