Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sharda vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 July, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5949/2022
Sharda D/o Jaswant Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo
Ambika Colony Near Railwa Over Bridge Hanumangarh Town,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of
Education Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat,
Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with Mr.
Dhairyaditya Singh Rathore.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
18/07/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a
direction to the respondents to consider her candidature for the
post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-I) in OBC (NCL) category.
It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that pursuant to the
advertisement dated 31.12.2021, the petitioner applied for the
post by indicating her category as 'General'.
Submissions have been made that the petitioner though
belongs to OBC (NCL) category and was in possession of a
certificate dated 23.01.2022 in this regard, however, as she was
married outside the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner was under
(2 of 3) [CW-5949/2022]
the impression that on account of her marriage outside the State,
she would not be entitled to the benefit of OBC, filled up her form
as 'General' category candidate. It is claimed that after the result
was declared and the respondents issued circular dated
23.03.2022 (Annex.7) specifically clarifying that those born in the
State of Rajasthan and having married outside the State of
Rajasthan, would not be deprived of the benefit of reservation, if
based on the income of the candidate's father she is entitled for
the same. Based on which, the petitioner became aware of
mistake committed by her and approached the respondents
seeking change in the category, which has been denied and
therefore, the respondents be directed to permit the change of
category from 'General' to 'OBC'.
A response to the petition has been filed, inter-alia,
indicating that the petitioner as on her own claimed her status as
General category candidate and that the mistake under any
impression committed by her, could have been rectified by her as
per the indication made in the advertisement itself providing
window for such correction, however, the petitioner has failed to
avail the said opportunity and it is only after the cut-off declared
by the respondents that the petitioner is seeking change in her
category from 'General' to 'OBC', which is not permissible.
Reliance has been placed on judgment in the case of Sonal
Tyagi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.7840/2019, decided on 12.07.2019.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The petitioner has fairly indicated that on account of a wrong
impression, she claimed her status as 'General' category candidate
(3 of 3) [CW-5949/2022]
though she could have claimed benefit as an 'OBC' category
candidate. However, it is not the case of the petitioner that there
was anything in the advertisement, which caused any kind of
confusion to the petitioner in this regard and it is an admitted
position that despite the window provided by the respondents
seeking change in the category, the petitioner has failed to avail
the said opportunity. As it cannot be said that the petitioner
purportedly was mislead by any reason attributable to the
respondents, the change in category cannot be permitted once the
result has been declared by the respondents as laid down in the
case of Sonal Tyagi (supra).
In view of the above discussion, no case of interference is
made out in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
95-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
