Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sagar Mal Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 19 April, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023/RJJD/010734]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14638/2022

Dharmesh Jeengar S/o Shri Bherulal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Maliyo Ka Kua, Tana, Tehsil Bhupalsagar, Distt. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

4. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel (Dop), Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14693/2022 Bhupendra Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Mohan Singh Chouhan, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Post Salamgarh, Block Anod, Distt. Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Registrar, University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

4. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel (Dop), Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14721/2022

[2023/RJJD/010734] (2 of 6)

Arvind Kumar Rangi S/o Daula Ram Rangi, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ramdev Ji Samne Wali Gali, Village Post Siyana, Distt. Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur.

(Rajasthan).

4. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel (Dop), Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14749/2022 Sagar Mal Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Post Sodar, Hurda District Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Registrar, University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

4. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel (Dop), Main Building Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14759/2022 Deepak Paliwal S/o Shri Prem Shankar Paliwal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Lauseeng, District Udaipur (Rajasthan).

                                                                        ----Petitioner


 [2023/RJJD/010734]                   (3 of 6)



                                    Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

4. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel (Dop), Main Building Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. D.K. Vyas
                                Mr. Kuldeep Prajapat
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
                                Mr. Vinit Sandhaya

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

19/04/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by

the judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.8279/2022 (Nikita Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors.) decided on 19.12.2022 in the following terms:-

"1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed that her candidature on the post of Patwari be considered as she has obtained her degree at the time of document verification.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner applied for the post of Patwari pursuant to recruitment notification dated 17.01.2019.

[2023/RJJD/010734] (4 of 6)

3. The petitioner appeared before the respondents for document verification on 15.02.2022 with a degree issued by the University on 20.11.2021. Her candidature was rejected, as the degree issued to her was after the date of written examination which was held on 23.10.2021.

4. Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's candidature could not be rejected merely because her result was declared after the date of written examination, particularly when it was none of her fault.

5. While submitting that on the date of document verification, the petitioner was having degree in her favour, learned counsel argued that the rejection of petitioner's candidature is arbitrary and contrary to law.

6. Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Staff Selection Board argued that the candidates who were having degree on the date of written examination are entitled for the recruitment and as per the conditions of the advertisement, a relaxation has already been given to the the candidates and no indulgence can now be granted to the petitioner.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment dated 11.10.2022, passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Meena Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14363/2022 and the judgment dated 02.09.2021, passed by this Court in the case of Kusum Paridwal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11810/2021.

8. In rejoinder, Mr. Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the entire world was under the influence of pandemic COVID-19 and it was required of the State to give some relaxation to all the candidates keeping in view that education activities and examinations were not held for two years.

9. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards Annex.-9, the decision taken by the State and prayed that direction identical ought to have been given in the present recruitment also.

10. In the opinion of this Court, the condition of the advertisement are sacrosanct and the same should be construed strictly. That apart, if a relaxation in light of COVID-19 Pandemic or otherwise is to be given, the

[2023/RJJD/010734] (5 of 6)

same was to be given to all similarly situated candidates and that too by the State Government.

11. The petitioner whose candidature has been rejected, cannot claim a direction to the State to grant relaxation, particularly when no such prayer was made before the competent authority.

12. In light of the judgment in the case of Mahesh Kumar Meena and Kusum Paridwal (supra), this Court does not find any merit and substance in the present case.

13. The writ petition therefore fails.

14. Needless to observe that the dismissal of the writ petition will not come in petitioner's way, if she chooses to pursue her cause before the competent authority of the respondents by way of representation or otherwise for grant of relaxation to her.

15. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly."

In the same set of facts, the petitioners being students of

B.Sc Final year applied for the post of Village Development Officer

in pursuance of the advertisement dated 06.09.2021. As per the

advertisement, the condition was that those aspirants/candidates

who are undergoing the studies of final year can appear in the

examination, however, their eligibility will be adjudged and will be

considered for appointment only, if the candidates have the

degree/eligibility condition fulfilled on or before the date of

examination. Since, in the present case the degree/eligibility

condition was obtained by the petitioners after the cut off date

provided in the advertisement, therefore, they are not eligible.