Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9922 Raj
Judgement Date : 28 July, 2022
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)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!