Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chhagana Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 March, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
(1 of 4) [CW-1778/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1778/2022
Chhagana Ram S/o Dharma Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Purani
Basti, Bhilo Ka Baas, Ramdevra, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection
Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute
Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.
3. Jai Narayan Vyas University, Through Its Registrar, Head
Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Godara.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
02/03/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a
direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's
qualification for the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade-III
('PTI Gr.III') and grant appointment, in case, the petitioner falls in
merit.
It is, inter-alia, indicated that the petitioner applied pursuant
to the advertisement dated 04.05.2018 (Annex.1) for the post of
PTI Gr.III. In terms of the eligibility and educational qualification,
a candidate in the last year / semester of the qualifying
examination could apply, however, it was required that the
(2 of 4) [CW-1778/2022]
candidate should produce his qualification, on the date of written
examination.
The written examination, in the present case, was held on
30.09.2018 though the result of the petitioner for the last
semester was declared on 10.08.2018, as the petitioner had
received back in the third semester in one paper, the said back
paper examination was held on 22.02.2019 and the result was
declared in the month of May, 2019, however, prior to that, the
document verification was held on 18.02.2019 and as on the said
date, the petitioner was not in possession any requisite
educational qualification, his candidature was rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
action of the respondents in cancelling the candidature of the
petitioner is not justified.
Submissions have been made that as the petitioner's final
semester result has already been declared prior to the date of
written examination and it is only on account of one back paper,
which exam was held late by the institution, the petitioner cannot
be penalized on that count.
Submissions have been made that at the time of document
verification, the respondents should have granted time to the
petitioner to produce the result of his back paper and failure to
provide time to the petitioner on that count, is not justified.
It is further submitted that as the petitioner has passed his
back paper and the result declared in the month of May, 2019, the
respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the
petitioner and grant him consequential relief.
(3 of 4) [CW-1778/2022]
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioner and have perused the material available on
record.
The provisions of the Rules are very clear, wherein the
requisite educational qualification has to be in possession of the
candidate on the date of written examination. The said aspect was
clearly indicated in the advertisement.
Admittedly, the petitioner on the date of written examination
i.e. 30.09.2018 was not qualified as though his result of the fourth
semester was declared, on account of back in one paper in third
semester, the course of the petitioner was still not over. Even, till
the date of document verification, the examination of the back
paper was held and consequently, his candidature was rejected.
The submission made that for the mistake of the institution
in not holding the examination in time, the petitioner cannot be
made to suffer, cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, the
recruiting agency cannot be made dependent on the outcome of
the petitioner's result and / or action of the educational institution
in holding / not holding of examination, the recruiting agency is
only required to see whether the candidate in terms of the Rules is
qualified during the course of document verification. Once it is
found that as on the requisite date as per the Rules, the petitioner
is not qualified i.e. on the date of written examination, no fault
can be found in rejection of the petitioner's candidature during the
document verification.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
judgment in Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of Punjab & Anr. : 2014
SCC OnLine P&H 2652. The said judgment has no application to
(4 of 4) [CW-1778/2022]
the facts of the present case as the said judgment pertains to
revaluation of answer book and in the present case, the petitioner
had a back in third semester, which examination was held after
the cut-off date.
In view of the above, no case for issuance of any direction is
made out, the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
64-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
