Rajasthan High Court
Neer Singh vs State Of Raj And Anr on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9272/2018
Neer Singh S/o Yadram, R/o Village And Post Bachhrain, Tehsil
Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Education
Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary (Elementary) Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with
Mr. Girraj Rajoria and
Mr. Aamir Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment reserved on 09/03/2022
Judgment pronounced on 01/04/2022
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ order or
direction for giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of
Teacher Grade-III, considering him in the category of OBC Non
Creamy layer in the light of direction given in the case of Kavita
Choudhary vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur & Anr., D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No.1700/2017 decided on 01.11.2017. Further, by the present
writ petition, order dated 17.04.2018 is prayed to be quashed and
set aside whereby, the respondents have rejected the candidature
of the petitioner.
(D.B. SAW/913/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(2 of 5) [CW-9272/2018]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuant
to one advertisement dated 11.09.2017 for the post of Teacher
Grade-III, the petitioner applied under the category of OBC
Creamy layer as per Annexure-2 by e-mitra facility. The petitioner
was allotted admission card and roll no. under OBC Creamy Layer
category. He submits that it was by mistake on the part of e-mitra
centre that his application was enrolled under OBC Creamy Layer
category whereas, he belongs to OBC Non Creamy layer category
and as such, he has filed one representation to the respondents
for amending the said category. When the same was not
amended, he filed one S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2707/2018,
which was disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2018 with the
direction to file a representation to the respondents in the light of
Kavita Choudhary's case (supra), if the petitioner is found to be
covered by the same.
3. On consideration of the said representation, vide order dated
17.04.2018 (Annexure-9), the respondents have rejected the
representation of the petitioner relying upon the advertisement
dated 11.09.2017 and the terms and conditions issued therein,
whereby by virtue of Special Note No. IV, VII & IX, it was
specifically mentioned that upon submission of online application
form, the same cannot be changed, if there is certain irregularity
and if, the final application form is submitted, the contents of the
last submitted application will be considered. It was also further
clarified in the advertisement that if any wrong or incomplete
information is given, the applicant will be responsible for the same
and without any notice, the application form can be rejected. The
respondents have also relied upon the judgment of co-ordinate
Bench of this Court passed in SBCWP Nos.17840/2016 titled
(D.B. SAW/913/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(3 of 5) [CW-9272/2018]
Bharti Chauhan vs. State and 3605/2017 titled Priyanka
Jangir vs. State wherein, in the similar matters, it was held that
the writ petitions cannot be entertained for the change in category
at belated stage. Relying upon the same, the petitioner's
representation was rejected.
4. Learned counsel has further relied upon Annexure-10, which
shows that the respondents have taken a biased view and vide
order dated 28.03.2018, changed the category of eight candidates
and therefore, hostile discrimination and bias is caused. In the
present scenario, the present writ petition was filed wherein, the
Hon'ble Court has passed ex-parte interim order dated 01.05.2018
and directed the respondents for considering the candidature of
petitioner in the category of OBC (NCL) in the counseling in light
of judgment of Kavita Choudhary (supra).
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that during the
relevant time, judgment of Kavita Choudhary (supra) was in force
and in the light of directions given by the High Court on
01.05.2018 and on 05.02.2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2707/2018, the respondents should have obeyed the orders of
the Court and considered the matter of the petitioner in OBC Non
Creamy layer category.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. C.L.
Saini submits that the order dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure-9) is
self explanatory in terms of Special Note Nos. IV, VII & IX of the
advertisement dated 11.09.2017. It is absolutely clear that there
will be no change in online application form qua the advertisement
dated 11.09.2017, and if two forms are submitted, the last
application form will be considered and if any mistake is there on
(D.B. SAW/913/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(4 of 5) [CW-9272/2018]
the part of petitioner, he has to suffer and for any incorrect
information, the application form can be rejected.
7. Learned AAG has relied upon the judgment of the High Court
in D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.804/2020 Rajasthan
Public Service Commission vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi wherein,
the Division Bench of this Court has held that the judgment of
Kavita Choudhary (supra) cannot be treated as a binding
precedent and no one would be prejudiced if mistakes are
corrected, the said contention cannot be accepted. After
considering the judgment of Kavita Choudhary (supra), the
Division Bench has held that it cannot be treated as a binding
precedent and has dismissed similar kind of writ petitions relying
upon the principles of judicial discipline.
8. Learned AAG submits that the present writ petition with the
respective prayer should be dismissed. He submits that the
category change as per Annexure-10 is self explanatory and has
only been done in the sports category and not otherwise.
9. We have gone through the record of the case, considered the
submissions made by respective counsels, and also considered the
judgments cited at Bar.
10. On consideration of advertisement dated 11.09.2017 and
perusal of Special Note Nos. IV, VII & IX, it is absolutely clear that
if any incorrect, incomplete and wrong information is submitted by
the applicant before the date of submission, the same will be
accepted and without any notice, the application form can either
be rejected or will be considered accordingly. In the case in hand,
prior to date of the application, no change in the category or
revised form was filed, hence, on this count alone, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
(D.B. SAW/913/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(5 of 5) [CW-9272/2018]
11. The reliance placed upon Kavita Choudhary (supra), is
erroneous and misplaced as in terms of judgment of Division
Bench dated 19.03.2021 in DBSAW No.804/2020 Rajasthan
Public Service Commission vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi, it has
been categorically held that Kavita Choudhary (supra) is not a
binding precedent and was rendered in different facts and
circumstances and contention of the petitioner is overruled as the
Division Bench has categorically held that the contention that on
mistake by the petitioner he should not be prejudiced, cannot be
accepted.
12. Lastly, the point of discrimination and bias emphasized by
way of Annexure-10, that category change was performed in the
matter of eight candidates, cannot rescue the petitioner as the
same was in the category of sports and in accordance with the
advertisement and entirely on different facts and circumstances.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition
is dismissed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Simple Kumawat /65
(D.B. SAW/913/2018 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
