Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Surendra Vishnoi vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board on 4 July, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8799/2022

Surendra Vishnoi S/o Shri Ramswaroop Vishnoi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near Rajasthan Petrol Pump, Bikaner Road, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk Road, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vivek Firoda.
For Respondent(s)         :



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                     Order

04/07/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the

petitioner in OBC-NCL, Outstanding Sports Person Category

instead of OBC-NCL category and further direction to include the

name of the petitioner for main examination in the changed

category and if found eligible and stand in merit, be accorded

appointment on the post of Village Development Officer pursuant

to the advertisement dated 06.09.2021.

Submissions have been made that pursuant to the

advertisement dated 06.09.2021, though the petitioner was

eligible for seeking benefit of reservation as an outstanding sports

(2 of 6) [CW-8799/2022]

person, on account of inadvertence in filling up the application

form (Annex.3), he could not indicate his status/claim benefit as

an Outstanding Sports Person.

The petitioner was issued provisional admit card (Annex.4)

for preliminary examination, where he appeared and the result

which was declared on 12.04.2022, though his Roll No. appeared

in the list of candidates eligible for main examination in OBC (NCL)

category, the petitioner on declaration of the result become aware

of the mistake committed by him and, therefore, the present

petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to

permit the correction.

Submissions have been made that as the stage of the

recruitment is before the main examination, none is getting

affected on account of the change in category and, therefore, the

same be permitted.

Reliance has been placed on Kavita Choudhary Vs. The

Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur: D.B. Civil

Special Appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017, decided on 01.11.2017.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioner and have perused the material available on

record.

The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted

his online application on 05.10.2021 and did not claim his status

as Outstanding Sports Person.

The admit card issued to the petitioner, clearly indicates his

category as OBC Non Creamy Layer i.e. his category of

Outstanding Sports Person was not indicated therein and the

exam was held on 28.12.2021. In the mark-sheet issued to the

(3 of 6) [CW-8799/2022]

petitioner for the preliminary examination again the same

category has been indicated.

The submissions made that as due to inadvertence the

petitioner could not claim the benefit as outstanding sports person

and as such, he may be permitted to change his category, now

apparently, cannot be countenanced.

The respondents themselves, in the advertisement had

clearly indicated the following:-

**16-3 & ;fn vkosnd }kjk viuh Js.kh ls fHkUu Js.kh esa vkosnu fd;k tkrk gS rks mldh Js.kh esa lq/kkj dh lqfo/kk ugha nh tk,xhA xyr Js.kh dk vkosnu djus ij vkosnd dk vkosnu i= cksMZ }kjk fdlh Hkh Lrj ij jn~n fd;k tk ldrk gS] ftldh leLr ftEesnkjh vkosnd dh gksxhA vuqlwfpr [email protected] [email protected]; fiNM+k [email protected] fiNM+k oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dk On line Application Form izLrqr (submit) djrs le; vius oxZ dk Li"V mYys[k fu/kkZfjr dkWye esa djsa vU;Fkk On line Application Form izkfIr dh vfUre fnukad i'pkr~ ¼la'kks/ku djus dh vof/k lekIr gksus ds ckn½ oxZ ifjorZu ugha fd;k tk;sxk vkSj ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks tks fd mDr oxZ dk mYys[k ugha djrs gS rks oxZ fo'ks"k dk ykHk foKkfir inksa gsrq ns; ugha gksxk vkSj uk gh bl laca/ k esa fdlh izkFkZuk&i= ij fopkj fd;k tk,xkA** ................................................................................. **17.1- ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ vius vkuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku djuk pkgrk gS rks vkosnu izkfIr dh vafre fnukad ds i'pkr~ 07 fnol ds Hkhrj fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd [email protected]& :i;s nsdj vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku dj ldrk gSA vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vH;FkhZ ds uke] firk ds uke] ekrk ds uke ,oa in uke ds vykok vU; izfof'k"V;ksa esa la'kks/ku fd;k tk ldsxkA vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku djus ,oa la'kks/ku gsrq fu/kkZfjr Qhl tek djkus dh izfØ;k vkWuykbZu vkosnu djus dh izfØ;k ds leku gh gksxhA 2- ;fn fdlh vH;FkhZ ds vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa =qfV jg tkrh gS rFkk og fdlh dkj.ko'k vkosnu djus dh vafre fnukad ds i'pkr~ 7 fnol ds Hkhrj vius vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku ugha dj ikrk gS rks mls vius vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku djus dk ,d vkSj vafre volj ijh{kk vk;kstu ds i'pkr~ vkWuykbZu =qfV la'kks/ku gsrq ,d fuf'pr le; fn;k tk;sxk ftlesa vH;FkhZ vius vkWuykbZu vkosnu dh =qfV dks vkWuykbZu la'kks/ku dj ldsxkA vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku gsrq fnukad ,oa le; dh lwpuk i`Fkd ls cksMZ dh osclkbZV ds ek/;e ls nh tk;sxhA mDr fu/kkZfjr le; esa vH;FkhZ vius vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa fu/kkZfjr la'kks/ku 'kqYd [email protected]& :i;s

(4 of 6) [CW-8799/2022]

vkWuykbZu vkosnu djus dh izfØ;k ds leku Hkqxrku dj la'kks/ku dj ldsxkA vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vH;FkhZ dsoy Js.kh] {kSfrt Js.kh] fo'ks"k [email protected] Js.kh] tUefrFkh] oSokfgd fLFkfr rFkk fo/kok] ifjR;Drk ,oa fyax bR;kfn esa la'kks/ku dj ldsxkA .................................................................................

4- blds i'pkr~ vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa fdlh izdkj dk la'kks/[email protected] Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk;sxk rFkk ,slh fdlh Hkh =qfV dk lEiw.kZ nkf;Ro vH;FkhZ dk gksxkA**

A perusal of the above would indicate that while the

respondents had indicated that in case a wrong category is

mentioned, the same would not be permitted to be corrected and

had provided a detailed provision for modification in the online

application form, wherein, the correction could take place within

seven days from the last date of application on payment of

Rs.300/-, and even if said period of seven days expires, again one

more opportunity was granted to the candidates to seek correction

and it was clearly stipulated that after the expiry of the said

opportunity, no changes could be permitted.

Admittedly, the petitioner did not avail the opportunities

granted under the advertisement. Further the admit card of the

petitioner also clearly indicates his category and as the petitioner

failed to avail the various opportunities granted, the same clearly

indicates the negligence on part of the petitioner.

The Division Bench in the case of Piyush Kaviya & Ors. Vs.

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

10.04.2018 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

(5 of 6) [CW-8799/2022]

issued by informing the 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."

Similarly in RPSC Vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi: D.B. Civil Special

Appeal (Writ) No.804/2020, decided on 19.03.2021 at Jaipur

Bench, 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.

(6 of 6) [CW-8799/2022]

The impugned order dated 24.8.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the respondent stands

dismissed."

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

position, whereby, the judgment in the case of Kavita Choudhary

(supra), relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, has been held

to be not a binding precedent, the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief, the petitioner is, therefore, dismissed.