Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1517 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 14 February, 2022
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)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!