Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sangeeta Tailor D/O Anil Kumar ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1517 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1517 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 14 February, 2022

Rajasthan High Court
Sangeeta Tailor D/O Anil Kumar ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 828/2021

Sangeeta Tailor D/o Anil Kumar Tailor, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Ward No. 11, Vpo Maonda Khurd, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District
Sikar (Rajasthan)
                                                                          ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.         State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
           Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.         Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection
           Board, State Agricultural Management Institute Campus,
           Durgapura, Jaipur Through Chairman
3.         Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service
           Selection Board, State Agricultural Management Institute
           Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur
4.         Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
           Secretary
                                                                     ----Respondents
For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Vigyan Shah
                                  Mr. Harendra Neel
                                  Ms. Sarah S. Sharma
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG



HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

14/02/2022

This appeal is filed by original petitioner to challenge an

order dated 06.08.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in writ

petition No.4551/2020. The facts are that pursuant to

advertisement issued by Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial

Service Selection Board on 16.04.2018 the petitioner had applied

for the clerical post. As per the advertisement the selection

(2 of 3) [SAW-828/2021]

process comprised of two stages first there would be written

examination followed by typing test. The petitioner had to

undertake his preferences for RPSC, government secretariat or

subordinate services. The petitioner had indicated his preferences

in the following order. RPSC first preference, subordinate services

second preference and government secretariat third preference.

The petitioner wanted to change these preferences at a later stage

which was prevented by the respondents upon which the petition

was filed.

Respondents have pointed out before the learned Single

Judge to the reply that as per clause 17 of the advertisement a

time limit of seven days was granted for seeking any correction in

the online application form. The petitioner had not exercised such

option and thus the preferences indicated in the form filled up by

the petitioner became final. At a later stage the petitioner cannot

be allowed to change the preferences.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying

on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Yogita

Yadhuvanshi, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.804/2020

decided on 19.03.2021.

We do not find any error in the view taken by the learned

Single Judge. As per the advertisement the petitioner had principal

choice to make preferences of different services. Even after filling

up the form the petitioner had clear seven days time to change

these preferences. Not having done that, the petitioner cannot be

allowed to change the same at any point of time. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that such request was made before

the result of examination was declared and therefore no third

(3 of 3) [SAW-828/2021]

party rights have arisen. This act itself would not be a ground to

allow change of preferences. When the recruiting agencies dealing

with large number of applications concerning various vacancies of

different cadres and in which horizontal as well as vertical

reservations are to be maintained, allowing changes at later stage

in the form filled up by the candidates would create major

administrative difficulties.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

                                    (SUDESH BANSAL),J                                               (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   N. Gandhi /3









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter