Rajveer Singh Rathore vs Hpcl Rajasthan Refinery Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 7207 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3883/2021

Rajveer Singh Rathore S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Rathore, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 28, Shri Ram Colony, Ram Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Hpcl Rajasthan Refinery Ltd., (Joint Venture Between Hpcl And Government Of Rajasthan), Tel Bhavan, Shakar Marg, Lal Kothi , Vistar Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Through Chairman Cum Managing Director.

2. Director, Human Resources, Hpcl Rajasthan Refinery Ltd, (Joint Venture Between Hpcl And Government Of Rajasthan), Tel Bhavan, Sahkar Marg, Lal Kothi, Vistar Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary through Cisco Webex App

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

15/03/2021

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought

directions to the respondents to permit him to appear in the

interview for the post of Mechanical Engineer advertised by the

respondents.

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the

petitioner vied for the post of Mechanical Engineer advertised by

the respondent No.1.

3. According to the petitioner, an e-mail was sent to him on

23.12.2020, requiring him to fill online application form and

submit documents by 27.12.2020, but due to inadvertance, the

(2 of 3) [CW-3883/2021]

same escaped his attention and thus, he failed to do the needful

by 27.12.2020.

4. The interviews were held on 24.02.2021, as scheduled.

5. On 24.02.2021 and 25.02.2021, the petitioner sent e-mail to

the respondents, requesting them to consider his candidature and

permit him to appear in the interview citing his inability/error of

not checking the mail sent to him.

6. Petitioner's aforementioned request has been turned down

by the respondents vide e-mail dated 25.02.2021 stating that the

interview procedure has already been completed for the said post.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was the

duty of the respondents to intimate the date of interview by way

of a letter or by way of public notice and the intimation by way of

e-mail was not proper/sufficient.

8. In considered opinion of this Court, the email (Annex.5),

regarding submitting application form and documents, has been

sent to the petitioner on 23.12.2020 on the same email-id

namely; Rajveer<[email protected]>, from which the

petitioner himself had sent mails to the respondents on

24.02.2021 & 25.02.2021.

9. The petitioner, who is aspiring for the post of Mechanical

Engineer, cannot be heard to raise grievance that the respondents

ought to have intimated the date of interview by way of a letter or

by way of a public notice, in the present era.

10. In considered opinion of this Court, in the present scenario

intimation to the candidates on their personal email-id, given by

the candidates themselves, is more than sufficient.

(3 of 3) [CW-3883/2021]

11. That apart, not only the documents verification, even the

interview procedure has completed. This Court is thus, not inclined

to interfere in the present matter.

12. The writ petition is, thus dismissed.

13. Stay application too stands dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 123-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)