Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Heera Lal vs Rajasthan Public Service ... on 12 May, 2022

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Farjand Ali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 345/2022

Heera Lal S/o Shri Megha Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Siyago Ki Dhani Sawau Moolraj, Tehsil Gida, District Barmer.

----Appellant Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)           :    Dr. Nupur Bhati,
                                Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s)          :    ---

HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

12/05/2022

This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.02.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition seeking

mandamus for correction of the entries made in the application

form has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the

appellant indisputably belongs to non-gazetted government

employee category. It was only by inadvertent mistake that while

submitting the application form, the said mention could not be

made. However, even before the start of the main examination,

when it was realized after receipt of the admit card, immediately

an application for correction was made. Learned counsel for the

appellant would argue that the judgments, which have been relied

upon by the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition, are

(2 of 5) [SAW-345/2022]

distinguishable on facts because those were the cases where the

correction was not carried out within the time limit prescribed in

the admit cards, whereas in the present case, no time limit has

been prescribed in the admit cards.

Relying upon an order passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Sharma vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12016/2021,

vide order dated 07.09.2021], it has been submitted that on

facts that case was similar to the case of the appellant. In that

case, it was argued that certain inadvertent omission while filling

the application form has been done. Taking into consideration the

nature of the errors, which had crept in and that in normal

circumstance a candidate would not realize while submitting the

application form when there are more than one column, relief was

granted. It is submitted that in the present case also, there were

number of informations required to be included in the application

form. The appellant belonged to OBC category apart from non-

gazetted government employee category and thus, he was entitled

to the benefit of horizontal reservation made for such category.

This particular declaration was inadvertently omitted.

Indisputably, the application form submitted by the appellant

did not contain any declaration of appellant being one belonging to

non-gazetted government employee category. Moreover, it is also

clear that even though candidates were permitted to rectify their

defects in the application within the stipulated period, but such

correction/rectification was not carried out by the appellant. On

the basis of the application submitted by the appellant and large

number of candidates, scrutiny has taken place and preliminary

examination has been held for the purpose of screening. It was

(3 of 5) [SAW-345/2022]

only when the appellant was short-listed for written examination

and when admit cards were issued, at that stage, the appellant

started seeking correction in the application form.

Where the selections of the candidates and benefit of vertical

and horizontal reservations are based on individual claims and

candidates belonging to different categories and such declarations

are required to be made in the application form in response to the

advertisement, the candidates are required to give relevant details

in the application form. Where mechanism for correction of errors

and defects is provided in the scheme of examination, such

candidates have the opportunity to rectify the defects within the

time stipulated under the terms and conditions of the

advertisement. Even thereafter, if a candidate fails to rectify the

defects in the application, in that case, such candidates cannot

seek shelter of the Court for issuance of a direction to allow them

to rectify the defects because if this is allowed, it would amount to

issuing a direction contrary to the terms and conditions of the

advertisement. Barring exceptional cases, which have been dealt

with in some of the judgments, such a relief cannot be granted. A

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Piyush Kaviya & Ors.

vs. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. [D.B.

Special Appeal (Writ) No.198/2018, vide order dated

10.04.2018] considered this aspect and it was held as under:

"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.

(4 of 5) [SAW-345/2022]

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."

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition applying the

principle laid down in the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra).

Learned counsel for the appellant lastly and fervently urged

that the appellant may be granted one opportunity at this stage as

the application for correction/rectification is made before holding

the written examination not when the process has come to the fag

end of the preparation of the merit list after written examination

and interview. This prayer cannot be accepted. Reliance placed on

the order of the learned Single Judge in the case of Chandra

Prakash Sharma (supra) is misplaced on facts as well as on law

both. Firstly, that was a case where certain columns with regard

to experience were required to be filled up. Secondly, in that