Rinku Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11902 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10467/2018

Rinku Rathore D/o Shri Karan Singh Rathore, Aged About 26 Years, Village Post Kunda, Tehsil Semari, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Shreyash Ramdev for
                                Ms. Anjali Gopa
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Khet Singh
                                Mr. Rishi Soni for
                                Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG


            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
                          Order

27/09/2022

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for

consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment

to the post of Senior Teacher (Maths) in the TSP category

pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016.

The case of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition is

that although she scored marks higher than the last cut off as

declared by the Department, she was not called for counselling. In

the result, her name was shown to be in the category of General

candidates whereas it ought to have been in the TSP category. The

specific assertion of the petitioner is that when the petitioner got

her marksheet, she came to know that she has not been selected

and shown as general category candidate instead of TSP category

candidate and thereupon she approached the respondent-

Authorities for consideration of her candidature in TSP category.

(2 of 3) [CW-10467/2018]

Although the pleadings as mentioned above have been made

in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that

the petitioner, inadvertently, filled her application form in General

Women category whereas she belonged to the TSP category and

therefore the bonafide/human error be condoned and she be

considered for appointment.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed specifically

submitting that the petitioner filled her application form in the

General Women category and after the examination being

conducted the result was declared on 21.02.2018. It was only

after the declaration of the result that the petitioner realized that

she has obtained marks higher than the cut off as declared for the

TSP category and therefore, preferred the present writ petition

before this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

A perusal of the complete petition makes it clear that it is

nowhere the averment of the petitioner that she had filled the

form in the General category because of any human error. The

case as put forward by the petitioner is that it is only for the first

time after declaration of the result that she realized that she had

been considered in the General category whereas she ought to

have been considered in TSP category. It is evident on record that

after the result been declared on 21.02.2018, it is for the first

time that any grievance whatsoever has been raised by the

petitioner pertaining to the fact that she belongs to TSP category.

Admittedly, the application form was filled by the petitioner in the

General category, she appeared in the examination as a General

category candidate and never objected to the same. Therefore,

(3 of 3) [CW-10467/2018]

any indulgence in favour of the petitioner at this stage cannot be

made by this Court. Reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner

on the Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in the case

of Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar & Anr.; D.B. Civil

Special Appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017 is found to be misplaced

in so far as firstly, the same was a case where the Court granted

indulgence with the specific finding that there was a bonafide

mistake on part of the petitioner therein. Secondly, in Sonal

Tyagi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.7840/2019, decided on 12.07.2019, the Division Bench of

this Court specifically held that Kavita Choudhary (supra) cannot

be treated as a binding precedent. It was observed by the Court

as under:

"4. This court is of the opinion that the later Division Bench Ruling in the case of Kavita Choudhary (supra) cannot be treated as a binding precedent. It clearly ignored the previous Rulings of this Court of a Coordinate Bench Strength (DB) without referring to a Larger Bench. Furthermore, the view that no-one would be prejudiced if mistakes are corrected, in the respectful opinion of this court, is unacceptable."

Moresoever, as informed, the recruitment in question which

pertains to year 2016 has been completed wayback and after the

completion of the same, the recruitment process of year 2018 has

also been completed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to

interfere in the present writ petition and the same is therefore

dismissed.

All the pending applications also stands disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 45-AbhishekS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)