Priyanka Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9441 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11084/2021

Priyanka Choudhary D/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Choudhary, Aged About 27 Years, Near Shitala Mata Temple, Veer Teja Colony, Manasar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid.

Mr. M.S. Shekhawat.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG.

Mr. Tarun Joshi for RPSC.

Mr. Vikram Singh.

Mr. Saransh Viz.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

20/07/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's

candidature for RAS Combined Competitive Exam, 2018 in the

category of Non-Gazetted Employee.

It is indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the

advertisement dated 02.04.2018 (Annex.2), the petitioner applied

vide Annex.3 inter-alia indicating her category as Rajasthan

Government Employee besides being OBC Non Creamy Layer.

The petitioner, after being subjected to the examination etc.,

in the result declared, was placed at Combined Merit (Non-TSP)

(2 of 5) [CW-11084/2021]

587 and it is submitted that pursuant thereto the petitioner has

also been allotted the Cadre/Department.

After the result was declared, the petitioner approached the

respondents seeking consideration of her candidature against the

posts reserved for Non-Gazetted Employees.

It was claimed that as the petitioner is working as a Non-

Gazetted Employee, her candidature needs to be considered in the

category of Non-Gazetted Employee and as she stands in merit

higher than the last selected candidate in the NGE category and is

likely to get a Cadre/Department of her higher preference, she be

considered towards that category.

However, the impediment for the petitioner has been that her

age was less than the minimum required for the NGE candidates,

as on the last date of application, she was aged 24 years 7

months & 27 days, whereas, the minimum age required for NGE

candidates is 25 years.

Learned counsel made submissions that the respondents be

directed to grant relaxation to the petitioner and consider her case

in NGE category and allot her Department as per her merit by

according reservation to her.

Learned counsel appearing for the RPSC made submissions

that the plea raised by the petitioner in the present petition

essentially amounts to seeking change in category from the OBC

Women RG to OBC Women NGE, which is not permissible,

inasmuch as, once the petitioner had applied in a particular

category, after the declaration of result, it is not permissible to

seek change in category.

Submissions have been made that the petitioner did not

apply under the NGE category as, in case, she would have applied

(3 of 5) [CW-11084/2021]

in the NGF category, she was ineligible and, therefore, now

seeking consideration of her candidature as NGF candidates is not

permissible and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

Reliance has been on judgments of this Court in the case of

Sonal Tyagi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.7840/2019, decided on 12.07.2019 and Piyush Kaviya & Ors.

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

on 10.4.2018

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

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

A bare look at the application Annex.3 filed by the petitioner

reveals that the petitioner did not apply as a Non-Gazetted

Employee and only indicated her status as Rajasthan Government

Employee.

A look at the advertisement indicates that while for the Non-

Gazetted Employees a horizontal reservation has been provided

and for Rajasthan Government Employees there is an age

relaxation to the extent of five years.

The reason for the petitioner not seeking her status as NGE

is clear, as for the category of NGE, the minimum age prescribed

is 25 years and on last date of application, the petitioner was aged

24 years 7 months 27 days and, therefore, in case, the petitioner

would have applied in the category of NGE, her candidature would

have been rejected and /or the application would not have been

accepted.

Once the petitioner knowing fully well that she was ineligible

for the category of NGE applied as Rajasthan Government

Employee and has stood in merit in the said category, only after

the declaration of result and the petitioner finding herself in a

(4 of 5) [CW-11084/2021]

position to get a Cadre/Department of her higher preference as

NGE candidate cannot seek change in category and a direction to

the respondents to consider her case for relaxation in the lower

age limit.

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 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

(5 of 5) [CW-11084/2021]

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, the writ petition filed by the respondent stands

dismissed."

In view of the above fact situation, the plea raised by the

petitioner, which essentially amounts to seeking change in

category that also for a category for which she was ineligible,

cannot be permitted, there is no substance in the writ petition, the

same is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 6-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)