Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Divya Nair vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9922 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9922 Raj
Judgement Date : 28 July, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Divya Nair vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 July, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Madan Gopal Vyas

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8743/2022

Divya Nair W/o Late Anish Gopal Krishnan D/o P.n. Unni, Aged About 37 Years, Flat No.a-21, Shubham Apartments, Sector 21- C, Faridabad, Haryana

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Raj.

2. The Registrar Of Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Raj.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr Pawan Bharti




           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

                         Judgment / Order

[PER HON'BLE VIJAY BISHNOI,J.]

28/07/2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being

aggrieved with the action of the respondents of rejecting her

candidature for direct recruitment in the cadre of District Judge,

2020 for the State of Rajasthan.

The petitioner being an aspirant filed her application for

appearing in competitive examination for direct recruitment to the

cadre of District Judge, 2020 pursuant to the Notification dated

05.01.2021 issued by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. The

petitioner has successfully passed preliminary examination held on

25.07.2021. As per the notice issued by the High Court dated

21.10.2021, the successful candidates in the preliminary

(2 of 4) [CW-8743/2022]

examination were required to send printout of online application

form affixed with the passport size recent colour photograph and

signature at the specified place along with the required documents

mentioned in point No.6 of Notification dated 05.01.2021 to the

Office of Registrar of the High Court through post or submit by

hand till 12.11.2021. Pursuant to the Notice dated 21.10.2021,

the petitioner sent printout of online application form along with

the required documents mentioned in point No.6 of Notification

dated 05.01.2021.

In continuation of Notice dated 21.10.2021, another

Notice dated 16.03.2022 was issued by the High Court publishing

a list of candidates with a direction to cure/remove the

deficiency(ies) pointed out in the Notice dated 16.03.2022. In the

said list, name of the petitioner is figured at serial No.467 and the

following defect has been pointed out;

"01 Judgment less submitted as per Rule 36(1) of RJS Rules, 2010"

The candidates were asked to remove the defect/deficiency by

31.03.2022.

As per the case of the petitioner, admittedly she has

submitted certified copies of nine judgments/final orders but failed

to furnish certified copy of one more judgment as required under

Rule 36(1) of the RJS Rules, 2010. The petitioner is claiming that

she has sent four more judgments via speed post before the last

date i.e. 31.03.2022, however, inadvertently, the petitioner failed

to furnish certified copy of only one judgment and the reason

given was that the petitioner's father suffered from acute allergic

bronchitis asthma and his medical condition worsened during

weather change in the month of March and as such the petitioner

has failed to furnish certified copy of one judgment.

(3 of 4) [CW-8743/2022]

However, as the deficiency has not been cured by the

petitioner, her candidature got rejected by the High Court vide

Notice dated 04.06.2022 indicating the following reason;

"Has failed to submit 10 judgments in conformity with Rule 36 of RJS Rules, 2010"

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

petitioner has inadvertently failed to furnish certified copy of one

more judgment, however, she has submitted four more judgments

pursuant to the notice dated 16.03.2022 before 31.03.2022 but

the High Court has illegally rejected the candidature of the

petitioner vide notice dated 04.06.2022. It is also submitted by

the petitioner that on account of holi holidays and on account of

medical condition of her father, has failed to obtain certified copy

of one judgment, however, the High Court without considering the

said situation of the petitioner has illegally rejected her

candidature. It is also submitted that the petitioner has filed a

detailed representation on 06.06.2022 to the High Court but the

High Court has not paid any heed to the said representation. It is

submitted that the action of the respondents of rejecting the

candidature of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and same is

liable to be set aside and the petitioner may be allowed to appear

in the main examination for direct recruitment to the cadre of

District Judge, 2020.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has failed to

submit 10 certified copies of the judgments as required under

Section 36(1) of the RJS Rules 2010. The petitioner has also failed

to prove that four judgments sent by her in response to the notice

(4 of 4) [CW-8743/2022]

dated 16.03.2022 are the certified copies. The reasons supplied

by the petitioner for not furnishing certified copy of one judgment

in time are not convincing as the petitioner was having sufficient

time to obtain certified copy of one more judgment and to send it

to the High Court within time.

The petitioner has submitted certain documents such as

laboratory reports from a Diagnostics Centre and OPD Slip in

support of her claim that her father was ill, however, the

laboratory reports are dated 21.03.2022, whereas the OPD Slip is

dated 11.03.2022. From the said documents, it cannot be

concluded that father of the petitioner was seriously ill or was

hospitalized, so the petitioner was not having sufficient time to

apply for certified copy of the judgment before the court.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the

case, we do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents

in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.

Hence, there is no force in this petition and the same is

hereby dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

                                   (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J                                     (VIJAY BISHNOI),J




                                    masif/-PS









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter