Dileep Kumar Patel vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5486 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:24519]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9430/2023

Dileep Kumar Patel S/o Narayan Lal Patel, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bhavrasiya, Post Darli, Via Dabok, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its Chairman Premises Of State Agriculture Management Institute Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Director Of Elementary Education, Bikaner.

----Respondents

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

02/08/2023

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction to the respondents to change the category of petitioner

from General to OBC(NCL) for recruitment to the post of Teacher

(Level-I) in Primary School Teacher, Direct Recruitment-2022.

2. Submissions have been made that due to inadvertence the

category of the petitioner was indicated as 'General' in the online

application form, though the petitioner belongs to the OBC

category, for which, reliance has been placed on OBC certificate

dated 3.7.2023 i.e. issued much beyond the last date of making

the application. However, it is claimed that the said mistake came

[2023:RJ-JD:24519] (2 of 3) [CW-9430/2023]

to the notice of the petitioner when the result was declared on

26.5.2023 and the roll number of the petitioner was not reflected

in the list of candidates, who were successful and based on which,

the petitioner approached the respondents for change of category,

which has not been permitted and, therefore, the respondents be

directed to change the category of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue

raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by order in

Piyush Kaviya & Ors. v. RPSC and Ors.: D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.198/2018, decided on 10.4.2018, wherein, the Division Bench

has laid down that such a correction is not permissible and,

therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

4. In the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra), the Division Bench of

this Court inter alia laid down as under:-

"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

[2023:RJ-JD:24519] (3 of 3) [CW-9430/2023]

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.

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

5. In view of the above judgment, as the respondents in the

application form itself had provided opportunity to correct the

mistakes, which was not availed by the petitioner, seeking

correction in the category after the result is declared is not

permissible.

6. Consequently, the petition has no substance. The same is,

therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 81-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)