Rajasthan High Court
Binesh Kumar Jangid Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 October, 2021
Bench: Prakash Gupta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 731/2021
Binesh Kumar Jangid Son Of Shri Bajrang Lal Jangid, Aged About
18 Years, Resident Of Village Kakrai, Tehsil Khetri, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Technical
Education, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Directorate of Technical Education through its Director, W-
6, Residency Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Principal Government ITI, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu
303503, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Krishan Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Brahma Prakash, Advocate
For Respondent(s) ; MR. Chiranji Lal Shaini, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Judgment
Date of Judgment :: 29/10/2021
By this DB Special Appeal Writ, appellant is challenging
the order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.965/2021, whereby the writ
petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
Facts of the case are that on 5.1.2021, the respondents
had invited online applications from eligible candidates for
admissions into different Industrial Training Institute trades for the
Academic Session 2020-21. Pursuant thereto, the appellant filled
(2 of 4) [SAW-731/2021]
in the online application form. In the list of candidates, his name
found place at Sr. No. 1. Thereafter the candidates were called for
counselling on 16.1.2021 at 10.00 AM, but appellant Binesh
Kumar Jangid reported belatedly for counselling. His father
submitted an application on 16.1.2021 to the Principal,
Government ITI, Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu, wherein the time 1.00
PM was mentioned, but by that time the vacant seats had already
been filled in, the appellant could not be allotted a seat. The
appellant filed the writ petition before this Court, wherein vide
order dated 8.2.2021 while issuing notice to the respondents, the
learned Single Judge directed that one seat of ITI in Government
ITI College, Khetri, Jhunjhunu, be kept vacant for the appellant,
but since the vacant seats had already been filled in and no seat
was lying vacant with the Department. The writ petition was
ultimately dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his order
dated 5.8.2021. Hence this appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the
advertisement dated 5.1.2021, although the candidates were
called for counselling at 10.00 AM, but no ending time was
mentioned, by which counselling was to be completed, therefore,
the appellant was under the impression that the conselling time
was from 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM. The appellant appeared for
counselling in time, but the respondents malafidelly neither
allowed him to participate him in the counselling nor allotted a
seat. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Miss
Bhavna Tiwari Versus Union of India reported in (2018) 1 AllWC
1027.
(3 of 4) [SAW-731/2021]
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that as per the schedule, counselling was to start on
16.1.2021 at 10.00 AM. He further submits that the appellant did
not implead any person as a party respondent, who despite being
less meritorious, has been admitted in college. The appellant
being no. 1 in the list of eligible candidates, on the date for
counseling, he was supposed to appear in the counselling sharp at
10.00 AM but he did not appear in the morning and reached at the
place of counselling at 1:00 P.M (after noon), but by the time all
the vacant seats had already been filled in. Two candidates namely
Surendra Chahar and Ankit Kumar came for counselling at about
11.15 AM, but at the time, the counselling was going on,
therefore, they were allowed to participate in the counselling. He
further submits that the order dated 8.2.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge for keeping one seat reserved was of no
avail, as by that time, all the vacant seats had already been filled
in. He further submits that the academic session has already been
started, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge is just and proper and no interference therewith is
required by this Court.
Heard . Considered.
Admittedly in the list of eligible candidates, the
appellant was at Sr. No. 1. Being at Sr. No. 1, he was supposed to
report for counselling at the given time i.e. at 10.00 AM, but
neither he reported in time for counselling nor gave any reason for
his delayed reporting. In this way, he missed the chance to
participate in the counselling and lost the seat being allotted in the
counselling.
(4 of 4) [SAW-731/2021]
The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ
petition noted that since the appellant did not appear for
counselling in the morning from 10.00 AM, all the seats lying
vacant were filled by the candidates who had appeared in the
morning from 10.00 AM onwards, therefore, no relief could be
granted to the appellant as against the said admissions. It was
also noted by the learned Single Judge that the appellant did not
implead any person as a party, who despite being lesser
meritorious than him, was admitted in college and in his absence,
no order could be passed against him.
We are in agreement with the findings given by the
learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no force in this
appeal and the same being bereft of any merit is liable to be
dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, the stay
application filed therewith does not survive and the same also
stands dismissed accordingly.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DK/72
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
