Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Paramjeet Kaur vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13373/2021
Paramjeet Kaur W/o Shri Jaswant Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
Ward No. 8, Near Baba Ramdev Mandir, Padampur, Tehsil
Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
27/06/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a
direction to select the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade III
(Level II) (English) in General Female PH (LD) category and
provide her appointment with all consequential benefits pursuant
to the advertisement dated 06.07.2016.
It is inter-alia indicated that pursuant to the advertisement
dated 06.07.2016 (Annex.5), the petitioner applied in the
category of PH (LD). In the cut-off list issued on 20.08.2018
(Annex.7), the cut-off was 58.11% and though the petitioner has
obtained 58.50% marks, she was not called for document
verification/counselling.
(2 of 3) [CW-13373/2021]
When the respondents issued waiting list on 08.09.2021
(Annex.8), wherein, the cut-off indicated in petitioner's category is
56.290, the petitioner, having obtained higher marks, has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Submissions have been made that as the petitioner has
obtained marks higher than the cut-off meant for her category,
she is entitled to grant of appointment and the action of the
respondents in not including her name in the list of candidates
called for document verification, is not justified.
A response to the writ petition has been filed inter-alia
indicating that respondents after issuance of the advertisement
dated 06.07.2016 pursuant to the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in Sher Singh and Ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh & Ors.: D.B. Spl.
Appeal Writ No.1464/2016 passed at Jaipur Bench, decided on
27.04.2017 had issued an advertisement on 11.09.2017
(Annex.R/1), whereby, the candidates, who had applied pursuant
to the advertisement dated 06.07.2016 were required to update
their application forms and as the petitioner has failed to update
her application form, her candidature in absence of the updation
on her part was not considered and as such, the petitioner cannot
raise any grievance in this regard.
Further submissions have been made that the first cut-off
was issued way back on 20.08.2018, wherein the cut-off was less
than the marks obtained by the petitioner, however, the petitioner
choose not to approach this Court in time and the respondents
also have not been approached at any stage and the present
petition has been filed belatedly and on that count also, the same
deserves dismissal.
(3 of 3) [CW-13373/2021]
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
Though the marks obtained by the petitioner are higher than
the cut-off meant for her category, however, as pursuant to the
directions issued by Division Bench of this Court and consequential
notification issued by the respondents requiring the candidates,
who had applied pursuant to the advertisement of 2016, to update
their data and have taken into consideration only those
candidates, who have updated their data, in absence of updation
by the petitioner, her candidature itself has not been considered.
The plea sought to be raised in the present petition based on
having obtained higher marks than cut-off by itself cannot be
countenanced, as in absence of updation on part of the petitioner,
in fact, the candidature of the petitioner pursuant to the
advertisement of 2016 had come to an end and, therefore, the
action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the
petitioner in this regard cannot be faulted.
In view of the above factual position, no case for interference
is made out in the petition.
The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
8-pradeep/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
