Monika Prajapat vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board
2022 Latest Caselaw 3140 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2296/2022

Monika Prajapat W/o Ashok Kumar D/o Ratan Lal Prajapat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 7 Rao Colony, Masuriya, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Director.

                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Moti Singh.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Vinit Sanadhya.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                       Order

02/03/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction to the respondent to change her category from General

to OBC (NCL).

It is inter alia indicated that pursuant to the advertisement

dated 17.1.2020 (Annex.2) for recruitment to the post of Patwari,

the petitioner filed her application form, however, due to

inadvertence of the E-mitra employee, category of the petitioner

instead of OBC (NCL) was indicated as General. When the

petitioner received her admit card, on noticing her category, the

petitioner applied for change in category, however, the same was

not permitted.

Once the result was declared by the respondent - RPSC on

25.1.2022, the petitioner again applied for change in category,

however, the same has not been acceded to.

(2 of 5) [CW-2296/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that

action of the respondents in not permitting the change in category

is not justified as it was only a bonafide mistake of the petitioner

in filling up the application and that also at the instance of the

E-mitra employee and, therefore, the Board is not justified in

refusing change of category.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Board made

submissions that a specific stipulation was indicated in the

advertisement itself, wherein, the candidates were required to first

fill up the form and check the preview that the same is in order

and then upload. Thereafter also a 7 days' window was provided

to the candidates, however, the petitioner failed to avail the said

opportunity and it is only after the result was declared and the

petitioner found herself in the cut-off of OBC (NCL) category, that

the application has been filed. It is denied that after receipt of

admit card, the petitioner made a representation to the

respondents, however, it was submitted that as the petitioner has

failed to avail the window provided in the advertisement itself, she

is not entitled to any relief.

Reliance has been placed on judgment in Piyush Kaviya v.

Rajasthan Public Service Commission: 2018 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC

767.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

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

The petitioner when she filled up her application form on

26.1.2020, indicated her category as General and despite the so-

called mistake committed by her at the time of filling up the

application form did not avail the opportunity as provided in the

(3 of 5) [CW-2296/2022]

advertisement i.e. within 7 days from the last date of filing of the

application to seek correction.

It appears that even when the petitioner received admit card

wherein her category was indicated as General, she did not take

any steps in this regard. Though it is claimed that petitioner

approached the respondent, however, there is no material

available on record to indicate any representation having been

made by the petitioner.

Subsequent to the declaration of result, the petitioner has

approached the respondents, who have rejected the application.

The relevant Clause of the advertisement reads as under:-

"17. vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la"kks/ku dh izfØ;k %& ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ vius vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la"kks/ku djkuk pkgrk gS rks vkosnu izkfIr dh vafre fnukad ds i"pkr 07 fnol ds Hkhrj fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd [email protected]& :i;s nsdj vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la"kks/ku dj ldrk gSA vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vH;FkhZ ds uke] firk dk uke] ekrk ds uke ,oa in uke ds vykok vU; izfof'kf"V;ksa esa la"kks/ku fd;k tk ldsxkA vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la"kks/ku djus ,oa la"kks/ku gsrq fu/kkZfjr Qhl tek djkus dh izfØ;k vkWuykbZu vkosnu djus dh izfØ;k ds leku gh gksxhA blds i"pkr~ vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa fdlh izdkj dk la"kks/[email protected] Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk;sxk rFkk ,slh fdlh Hkh =qfV dk lEiw.kZ nkf;Ro vH;FkhZ dk gksxkA"

The stipulation in the advertisement is very specific requiring

the candidates to seek the amendment, if any, within 7 days from

the last date of filing of the application and in case, the same was

not done, no other amendment would be permitted.

(4 of 5) [CW-2296/2022]

Division Bench in the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra) in similar

circumstance, wherein, time was granted for making the requisite

correction, came to the following conclusion:-

"29. It needs to be highlighted that seeking public employment the number of applicants swell into thousands for every appointment offered. The cumbersome process of processing the applications manually and at each stage of the selection process manual intervention being time consuming, aid of technology is being taken. On-line applications are being received. Opportunities to correct mistakes in the on-line application forms are provided by opening a window period. When the window period closes, the forms, applications etc. as amended are processed. The computer generates the admit cards. The results of the examination are fed in the computer for various categories of posts and in the instant case, the number being 30, select list based on merits and categories are generated by the computer. The candidates need to be vigilant and specially when, as in the instant advertisement, they were cautioned time and again to check their particulars and a window period within which corrections could be made was made available to the candidates.

30. Whilst it may be true that every endeavour should be made to induct meritorious candidates but at the same time administrative inconvenience caused by permitting applicants to correct errors committed by them has to be kept in mind. It serves public interest that appointments to civil posts are made as early as possible.

31. Thus, the conflict between merit and public interest subserved by timely filling up of public posts has to be balanced. The balance is stuck in the instant case by giving a window period to the candidates to correct the on-line application forms. The balance was stuck by prohibiting any application to be submitted after last date notified.

(5 of 5) [CW-2296/2022]

32. The writ petitioners were negligent. They never disclosed in the on-line application forms submitted that they were non- gazetted 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."

In view of the above fact situation, wherein the petitioner

has failed to avail the window meant for making the requisite

correction in the application form and the Division Bench

judgment in the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra), no case for

interference is made out in the petition. The same is, therefore,

dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 74-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)