Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sumitra Bishnoi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 August, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:26185]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10617/2023

Sumitra Bishnoi D/o Shri Dilip Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Vpo Dawal, Chitalwana, District Jalore (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Secretary.

3. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.

                                                                        ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)               :    Mr. Chatur Bhuj
For Respondent(s)               :    Mr. Vinit Sanadhya


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
                           Order

18/08/2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to

the respondent No.2-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board to declare

the result of the petitioner in the "Specially Abled

Category(Hearing impaired)" after permitting her to make

necessary correction in the application form.

3. Briefly the facts in the present writ petition are that the

petitioner considering herself eligible for the post of Teacher

(Level-1), applied for the said post in pursuance of the

advertisement issued by the respondents on 16.12.2022. The

application form was filled-up by the petitioner and the

respondents considering the details mentioned in the application,

allowed her to appear in the examination in the "Category" which

was filled in the application form. The date of written examination

[2023:RJ-JD:26185] (2 of 6) [CW-10617/2023]

was fixed by the respondents as 25.02.2023. For appearing in the

written examination, the respondents issued an Admit Card to the

petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the written examination

which was conducted on 25.02.2023. Along with declaration of the

result, the cut off marks were also declared by the respondents.

The cut off marks in the 'OBC General and Female Category' is

175.8889 and the petitioner has secured 176.0855 marks. The

petitioner's case is being evaluated under 'OBC category', while

her candidature is not being assessed under the "Specially Abled

Category", hence, the petitioner preferred this writ petition

seeking her case to be considered under "Specially Abled

Category."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on

17.01.2023 petitioner submitted four separate forms via E-mitra.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

provided all relevant documents to the E-mitra shop-owner, who

had filled in the application form on her behalf. While filling in the

current application form, the E-mitra owner inadvertently marked

as "Not Applicable" under the "Specially Abled Category" which is

factually incorrect. Consequently, incorrect information was

submitted, which should not be considered detrimental to the

petitioner's case. Additionally, he asserts that since the petitioner

furnished all necessary documents to the E-mitra to fill in the

form, thus, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any error

made by the E-mitra personnel while filling in the form. Learned

counsel further submits that in the other forms which were filled-

in by her on 17.01.2023, correct details have been mentioned.

[2023:RJ-JD:26185] (3 of 6) [CW-10617/2023]

5. Learned counsel also submits that to fortify her claim in the

category of "Specially Abled Category", she has also annexed the

requisite documents showing that she belongs to "Specially Abled

Category" and, therefore, she should be extended the benefit of

"Specially Abled Category."

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the

submissions of the counsel for the petitioner submits that two

opportunities were granted to all the candidates for making the

rectification in the entries made in their application forms. In the

advertisement dated 16.12.2022 in Column No.16 Sub Clause-1,

an opportunity was granted to all the candidates for making any

correction in the application form, if any wrong information has

been mentioned therein. Furthermore, he asserts that even if a

candidate missed the initial opportunity (i.e. before the

examination dated 25.02.2023), the respondent- Rajasthan Staff

Selection Board vide press note dated 02.03.2023 again invited

the opportunity to the candidates for making necessary correction,

if any, in their application forms.

7. Learned counsel further submits that after declaration of the

date for written examination, the respondents issued the admit

card to the petitioner in which all the details of the application

forms were available, however, the petitioner was not vigilant as in

the admission form, the category of the petitioner was not shown

to be "Specially Abled Category." Learned counsel, therefore,

submits that despite having been granted three chances to correct

the mistakes, the petitioner slept over and did not make any

correction. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be

considered in the "Specially Abled Category" as no error was

[2023:RJ-JD:26185] (4 of 6) [CW-10617/2023]

committed by the respondents. Learned counsel relies upon the

judgment passed by this Court in case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.9430/2023 (Dileep Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan

& Ors.) decided on 02.08.2023, wherein in the identical

situation the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed, relying

upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of D.B.

Special Appeal (Writ) No.198/2018 (Piyush Kaviya & Ors.

V/s RPSC & Ors.) decided on 10.04.2018.

8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the relevant record of the case.

9. The admitted facts in the present case show that the

respondents have taken into consideration the details mentioned

in the application form of the petitioner and the petitioner despite

having been granted reasonable opportunities by the respondents,

has not corrected the entries in the application form.

10. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:26185] (5 of 6) [CW-10617/2023]

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 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 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."

11. In light of the Division Bench judgment referred above, the

respondents have correctly placed the petitioner in the category

mentioned in her application form.

12.Further, admittedly despite the reasonable opportunities having

been granted by the respondents to the petitioner for making

correction in the application form, the same has not been done,

therefore, the respondents have rightly considered the case of the

petitioner as per the details mentioned in the application form

and,thus, the petitioner cannot be permitted to switchover to the

[2023:RJ-JD:26185] (6 of 6) [CW-10617/2023]

other category which was not mentioned in the application form,

in this view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the