Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Kumar Patidar vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 4) [CW-3553/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3553/2021
Ashok Kumar Patidar S/o Shri Gokalji Patidar, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Vpo Silohi, Tehsil Galiyakot, District Dungarpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dungarpur,
District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education Dungarpur, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary for
Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
22/03/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner has sought
a direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for the
post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I), pursuant to the recruitment
notification dated 12.04.2018.
2. The facts appertain are that the respondents issued a
recruitment notification dated 12.04.2018 and advertised 5431
posts for Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) (General Education).
(2 of 4) [CW-3553/2021]
3. The petitioner having submitted his application form was
found meritorious and his name was shown in the select list dated
01.06.2018 and the petitioner was allotted District Dungarpur.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Dungarpur issued a press release
dated 14.06.2018 and requested all the candidates shown in the
above list for document verification between 18.06.2018 and
20.06.2018.
5. The petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, did not
appear in the document verification.
6. Thereafter, vide communication dated 19.06.2018, the
respondents required him to appear on 23.06.2018 and get his
documents examined.
7. On that date also, petitioner did not chose to appear.
8. On 15.04.2019, the respondents issued a list of the
candidates, whose selection were cancelled, as they remained
absent during the document verification or were found ineligible.
Said list included name of petitioner.
9. On 29.12.2020 the respondents operated reserve/waiting
/reshuffle list and issued a fresh list of provisionally selected
candidates while declaring cut off marks.
10. Naturally this list did not contain petitioner's name, as his
candidature stood cancelled.
11. The petitioner claims to have filed a representation dated
30.12.2020, before the respondent No.4, inter alia stating that he
could not appear for the document verification for family reasons,
hence, he be provided one more opportunity.
12. According to the petitioner, since no heed was paid to the
representation aforesaid, he has preferred the instant writ petition
for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents.
(3 of 4) [CW-3553/2021]
13. Mr. Kailash Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that since in petitioner's category, namely TSP
(General) no candidate is available and seats are lying vacant, the
respondents be directed to consider petitioner's candidature.
14. It was submitted by Mr. Jangid that the petitioner could not
appear for document verification on the scheduled date, due to his
family circumstances. He prayed that since seats in his category
are still lying vacant, the petitioner be granted one more
opportunity. If such direction is issued, the same will not affect
any third party rights.
15. Heard.
16. Indisputably, the petitioner, despite being called for
document verification by way of press release dated 14.06.2018,
did not appear. Whereafter, the respondent No.4 even sent a
communication dated 19.06.2018, giving another opportunity to
the petitioner to appear for document verification on 23.06.2018.
However, this time also the petitioner did not care to appear.
17. On 15.04.2019, petitioner's name was shown in the list of
rejected candidates, yet the petitioner failed to submit even a
representation much less taking up legal recourse. Petitioner
remained in slumber for a period of more than a year. In the
representation dated 30.12.2019, no reason worth the name has
been indicated, as to why he chose to remain absent during the
document verification.
18. Even in the present writ petition, the petitioner has not
stated any cogent reason which can justify his absence in the
document verification.
19. In considered opinion of this Court, a candidate, who is not
willing to accept the appointment and who himself chooses to
(4 of 4) [CW-3553/2021]
remain in oblivion, cannot invoke equity of this Court, simply
because some seats are lying vacant.
20. 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.
21. 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 submitted that petitioner be given one
more chance to appear for document verification.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.
26. Stay application too stands dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
50-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
