Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Tanuja Tiwari vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 29 August, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:27353]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9263/2023

Tanuja Tiwari D/o Shri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 27, Jagdish Vihar, Rajendra Nagar Extension, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

                                                                              ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)                  :     Mr. Kailash Jangid.
For Respondent(s)                  :     Mr. Tananjay Parmar for Mr. Vinit
                                         Sanadhya.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                              Order

29/08/2023

      Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following

relief:-

"A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order denying to consider the candidature of the petitioner Against the category of General Sports for her selection on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level- II) English in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.12.2022(Annex.2) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner in further selection process for the post of

(D.B. SAW/811/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

[2023:RJ-JD:27353] (2 of 6) [CW-9263/2023]

General Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) English Against her respective category of General Sports as she mentioned in her original online application form dated 10.01.2023 (Annex.3) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.12.2022.

C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner in the further selection process and thereafter, provide appointment to her on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) English in her respective category of General Sports as per her marks and merit status in pursuance of advertisement dated 16.12.2022 with all consequential benefits".

Briefly the facts necessary to be narrated are that the

petitioner applied for the post of General Teacher Grade-III English

(Level-II) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.12.2022. In

the application form so submitted, in the column mentioning "Are

you an outstanding Sports Person", the answer submitted by the

petitioner was 'Yes'. In the admit card issued for appearing in the

written examination, the category of the petitioner is also shown

as 'General Sports person. Thereafter, the written examination

was conducted by the respondents on 27.02.2023. The

respondents permitted the candidates to rectify their details/

information in the online application form. The last date for doing

the same was 12.03.2023. In pursuance of the permission so

granted by the respondents allowing rectification in the application

form, the petitioner refilled her application form (Annex.6).

However, in question to - "Are you an Outstanding Sports Person",

the answer given by the petitioner was 'No'. Thereafter, the

respondents declared the result of the said examination and merit

list of the candidates was also prepared on 09.06.2023 (Annex.7).

The name of the petitioner is shown in the select list in general

category. In the circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the

(D.B. SAW/811/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

[2023:RJ-JD:27353] (3 of 6) [CW-9263/2023]

instant writ petition to get her candidature considered in the

category of 'General Sports Person'.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that

while filling in the application form, the petitioner specifically

mentioned that she is an 'Outstanding Sports Person'. Even in the

admit card, the category of the petitioner is shown as 'General

Sports Person'. However, the petitioner while making corrections

in the marks obtained in Senior Secondary School Examination, by

mistake, mentioned 'No' in an answer to a question- "Are you an

Outstanding Sports Person". It is also contended by learned

counsel for the petitioner that at the time of documents

verification, she submitted all the requisite documents showing

that she is an "Outstanding Sports Person", therefore, her

candidature should be considered in "General Outstanding Sports

Person". He, therefore, prays that it was her bonafide mistake,

therefore, her candidature should be considered in General, Sports

Persons category.

Per contra, opposing the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents

submits in furtherance of the opportunity granted by the

respondents to make corrections in the application form, the

petitioner furnished the information in the application form by

writing "No" in an answer to question-"Are you an Outstanding

Sports Person". The information submitted by the petitioner after

corrections in the application form was considered by the

respondents while preparing the result of the selection process

and since, the petitioner has written "No" in the corrected

application form, they have considered the candidature of the

(D.B. SAW/811/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

[2023:RJ-JD:27353] (4 of 6) [CW-9263/2023]

petitioner in the general category and not in general sports

persons category. Learned counsel for the respondents submits

that the petitioner cannot be permitted to change her category

after declaration of the result. He has placed reliance upon

judgment dated 10.04.2018 passed by Division Bench of this

Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.198/2018

(Piyush Kaviya & Ors. V. RPSC & Ors.) in support of his

contentions. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner

was having any doubt about incorrect information having

submitted by the petitioner, she could have approached the

respondents before declaration of the result. He, therefore, prays

that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed

being devoid of merit.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also

gone through the relevant record of the case.

The petitioner has corrected the answer from "Yes" to "No" in

the application form against the question-"Are you an Outstanding

Sports Person". Since, the petitioner himself has filled in "No" in

the corrected application, therefore, the respondents have rightly

considered the candidature of the petitioner in general category

and not in the category of General, Sports Persons. The petitioner

should have been vigilant while making the corrections in the

application form especially when it was permitted by the

respondents to check and correct the particulars filled in by the

petitioner on earlier occasion while filling in the application form.

Since, the entire selection process has processed on the

information supplied on line, therefore, the petitioner cannot be

(D.B. SAW/811/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

[2023:RJ-JD:27353] (5 of 6) [CW-9263/2023]

given any leverage for her casual attitude and no fault can be

found with the respondents.

In the case of Piyush Kavia (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 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

(D.B. SAW/811/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

[2023:RJ-JD:27353] (6 of 6) [CW-9263/2023]

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."

In view of the discussions made above, it is apparently clear

that the respondents in the application form itself provided an

opportunity to make corrections in the online

information/particulars furnished by candidates and the same

having been already availed by the petitioner and corrections have

been done, therefore, seeking further corrections in the category

by the petitioner, after declaration of the result is not permissible.

The action of the respondents is just, proper and correct,

therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere in the writ petition

filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the

petitioner is dismissed being bereft of merit.