Manish Mathur vs Rajasthan Public Service ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2771 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2608/2022 Manish Mathur S/o Dilip Mathur, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Nagaur City, Tehsil And District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2546/2022

Heera Lal S/o Megha Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Siyago Ki Dhani Sawau Moolraj, Tehsil Gida, District Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. R.J. Punia.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Tarun Joshi (through VC)


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                     Order

18/02/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners,

candidates at RAS and RTS exam, seeking change in category

from General to General, Non-Gazetted Employee ('NGE').

It is inter alia submitted that as the petitioners are in

service, while filling up the form, they were to seek the category

as General, NGE, however, due to inadvertence, they could not

seek the NGE category. They appeared in the preliminary

(2 of 5) [CW-2608/2022]

examination, which they cleared and fall in the cut-off. It is only

when the result was declared, the petitioners became aware of the

fact that they had not claimed their status as NGE and, therefore,

immediately moved the respondent - RPSC for change of

category.

It is claimed that the petitioners were required to deposit

fees of Rs.300/- each, which the petitioners have done, however,

the respondents have not done the needful and the main

examinations are scheduled to start from 25 th of February, 2022,

and therefore, the respondents be directed to do the needful.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that

the respondents are not justified in not correcting the mistake,

inasmuch as, at this stage change in category would not affect

anyone as the petitioners already stand in cut-off for the

preliminary examination and, therefore, the petitions be accepted

and the respondents be directed to correct the category of the

petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing for the RPSC on caveat made

submissions that prayer made by the petitioners seeking

correction in the category after preliminary examination, cannot

be accepted as the issue is no more res integra and is covered by

two Division Bench judgments in Piyush Kaviya & Ors. v. RPSC

and Ors.: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.198/2018, decided on

10.4.2018 and Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yogita

Yaduvanshi: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.804/2020, decided

on 19.3.2021 at Jaipur Bench.

Further submissions have been made that as many as four

opportunities are granted to the candidates to check the entries in

the application form, inasmuch as, as soon as the application form

(3 of 5) [CW-2608/2022]

is submitted, message is flashed to candidates regarding their

name and the category, in which, the form has been filed.

Further, in the instructions contained in the advertisement,

three more opportunities at different stages wherein the last been

within 10 days of the preliminary examination, have been granted

for seeking change in the application form. The petitioners

apparently despite being aware of the same, as the category is

also indicated in the admission card, don't seek the changes and

as such the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the

petitions deserve dismissal.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The submission made by learned counsel for the respondent

- RPSC is duly supported by the stipulation made in the

advertisement, wherein, various opportunities at different stages

are available to the candidates for seeking corrections / changes

in the application form.

Further, the admission card of the petitioners also clearly

indicates petitioners' category and as the petitioners have not

availed the various opportunities granted, apparently the

petitioners have been negligent in this regard.

The Division Bench in the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra), inter

alia, came to the following conclusion:-

"32. The writ petitioners were negligent. They never disclosed in the on-line application forms submitted that they were nongazetted Government employees. Thus, it was too late in the day for them to seek change in the category in which they had applied after the admit cards were issued by informing the

(4 of 5) [CW-2608/2022]

Commission that they were non-gazetted Government employees.

33. The appeals are allowed. Impugned orders of even date i.e. 24.11.2017 are set aside. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4440/2017 filed by Sajjan Singh, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10812/2017 filed by Birda Ram Bishnoi and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4466/2017 filed by Purshpendra Singh Rajawat are dismissed."

In the case of Yogita Yaduvanshi (supra), the Division Bench

came to the following conclusion:-

"Admittedly, the respondent had not sought online correction within the stipulated period i.e. from 12.5.2018 to 18.5.2018. In these circumstances, in view of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the writ petition filed by the respondent was liable to be dismissed.

In Sonal Tyagi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7840/2019, decided on 12.7.2019, the Division Bench had observed as under:-

"4. This court is of the opinion that the later Division Bench Ruling in the case of Kavita Choudhary (supra) cannot be treated as a binding precedent. It clearly ignored the previous Rulings of this Court of a Coordinate Bench Strength (DB) without referring to a Larger Bench. Furthermore, the view that no-one would be prejudiced if mistakes are corrected, in the respectful opinion of this court, is unacceptable."

Learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition basing reliance on decision of Division Bench in Kavita Choudhary's case (supra), but in Sonal Tyagis's case (supra), it has been observed by the Division Bench that it cannot be treated as a binding precedent. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the Division Bench judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 24.8.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequently,

(5 of 5) [CW-2608/2022]

the writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed."

In view of the above fact situation as well as the legal

position, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The petitions

are, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

23 and 62 - Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)