Mahipal Singh Chouhan vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 687 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4155/2022

Mahipal Singh Chouhan S/o Himmat Singh Chouhan, Aged About 23 Years, VPO Bhabrana Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

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

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

5. Bhavin Choubisa S/o Naresh Kumar Choubisa, Aged About 21 Years, Kurabad Tehsil Sarada District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Vinit Sanadhya
                                 Mr. Mahesh Chandra Bishnoi



                       JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                      Order

18/01/2023

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance

that though his name was reflected in the provisional merit list, he

was not given order of appointment and the persons less

meritorious than him have been appointed.

2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass, which run as under:-

2.1 The respondent Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial

Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Selection

(2 of 6) [CW-4155/2022]

Board"), issued an advertisement No.1/2021 on 05.02.2021 and

invited applications for the post of Agriculture Supervisor. The

petitioner desirous of such post, submitted his online application

form on 10.03.2021

2.2 According to the terms of the advertisement, particularly

clause 7(ii) thereof, an incumbent was required to acquire

academic qualification prior to the date of written examination.

2.3 When the petitioner applied for such post, he was in the final

year of the B.Sc. Agriculture course and before the date of the

examinations, which were held on 18.09.2021, the petitioner's

result came to be declared (on 31.08.2021) and he had cleared

papers of all the subjects except Mathematics.

2.4 The petitioner was consequently given supplementary/backlog

in Mathematics. The petitioner did appear in the supplementary

examinations and cleared the same on 16.12.2021.

2.5 But before the result of supplementary was declared the

written examinations were held by the Board as scheduled

(18.09.2021).

2.6 The Selection Board rejected petitioner's candidature as he had

not passed B.Sc. Final Year examinations on the date of written

examination i.e. 18.09.2021.

3. Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that since the petitioner had cleared due/backlog paper

of Mathematics in supplementary examination, the respondent

ought to have included his name in the final select list, which was

issued on 07.03.2022, inasmuch as, by such date, the petitioner

had acquired the requisite educational qualification.

4. While submitting that on the date of submitting application

form, the petitioner was a Final Year student and he was entitled

(3 of 6) [CW-4155/2022]

for applying for the post, learned counsel for the petitioner argued

that the result of supplementary examination relates back to the

date of original result, which was declared on 31.08.2021 and,

hence, the respondents' action is illegal.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the

judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Abhishek Singh

Panwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.11196/2011 and submitted that petitioner's case is squarely

covered by such judgment and his petition also deserves to be

allowed.

6. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Punjab

& Haryana High Court rendered in the case of Harinder Kaur

Chandok Vs. The Punjab School Education Board : AIR 1988 P H

244.

7. Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, learned counsel for the respondent -

Selection Board, on the other hand argued that the terms of the

advertisement are required to be followed and in the light of clause

7(ii) of the subject advertisement, the petitioner cannot get any

relief. He submitted that in the matters of recruitment,

sympathetic consideration has no role to play.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of

Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab & Ors. Vs.

Suchintan & Ors. : AIR 1994 SC 1761 and submitted that the

controversy involved in the present case has been set at rest by

the adjudication made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the said

case.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(4 of 6) [CW-4155/2022]

10. The relevant condition of the advertisement reads thus:-

"7- ik=rk ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk%& ¼ii½ nsoukxjh fyih esa fy[kh fgUnh esa dk;Z djus dk Kku ,oa jktLFkku dh laLd`fr dk KkuA tks O;fDr ikB~;Øe ds vafre o"kZ dh ijh{kk esa mifLFkr gqvk gS ;k lfEefyr gks jgk gks] tks bu fu;eksa esa mfYyf[kr in ds fy, 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk dh vko';drk gS ;k lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy, d`f"k i;Zos{kd in ds fy, vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk ysfdu [email protected] mi;qDr p;u ,tsalh dks visf{kr 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk izkIr djus dk izek.k izLrqr djuk gksxk%&

1. eq[; ijh{kk esa mifLFkr gksus ls igys] tgka fyf[kr ijh{kk vkSj lk{kkRdkj ds nks pj.kksa ds ek/;e ls p;u fd;k tkrk gS]

2. lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls igys] tgka fyf[kr ijh{kk vkSj lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls p;u fd;k tkrk gSA

3. fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls igys tgka dsoy fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k dsoy lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls p;u fd;k tkuk gS] tSlk Hkh ekeyk gksA lewfpr p;u ,[email protected] dks visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk fyf[kr ijh{kk dh frfFk rd vftZr dj ysus dk lcwr izLrqr djuk gksxkA cksMZ }kjk mDr inksa ij p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA"

11. The facts are not in dispute that though petitioner's result for

Final Year Examination was declared on 31.08.2021, he got

supplementary in Mathematics and he could clear the same only

on 16.12.2021, when the result of supplementary examination was

declared. It is also not in dispute that much before the declaration

of the result of the supplementary examination, the Selection

Board had conducted the written examination (on 18.09.2021).

12. According to this Court the terms of the advertisement are

required to be strictly adhered to. In the teeth of clause 7 (ii) of

the advertisement providing that a candidate has to pass the final

examination before the date of holding written examination by the

Boad, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The case of the

petitioner who has passed the examination after clearing the paper

(5 of 6) [CW-4155/2022]

in supplementary examination can not be equated with a candidate

who passes the exam due to subsequent increase in the marks

under revaluation.

13. In case of revaluation, the result of the revaluation can

relate back to the date of declaration of original result, inasmuch

as, the fault ultimately lies with the examination authorities,

whereas in the case of supplementary examination, the examining

body cannot be faulted with, it is the student alone who is

responsible. The very nomenclature "supplementary" means filling

of the deficiencies.

14. Since, the petitioner has failed to fill - up the deficiency of

clearing paper of Mathematics, his qualificational eligibility has to

be reckoned from the date when he passed the paper in the

supplementary examination.

15. The judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Abhishek

Singh Panwar (supra) is per incuriam in light of the judgment of

the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Council of Homeopathic

System of Medicine, Punjab & Ors. (supra). That apart, a reading

of judgment in the case of Abhishek Singh Panwar (supra) reveals

that the Court found the fault of the examination authority, who

did not conduct the supplementary examination for a considerable

time. The Court thus held that it was none of the fault of the

petitioner therein, who could not appear and clear the

supplementary examination; whereas in the instant case, the

supplementary examination was conducted in time and even the

result of the supplementary examination was declared well within

three months, which in no case can be said to be belated.

16. The judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court which has

only persuasive value is also clearly distinguishable on facts - the

(6 of 6) [CW-4155/2022]

same relates to the candidate having been declared ineligible due

to deficiency in payment of application fees and the Court ascribed

the fault on the examination authority based on their process.

17. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any

substance in the petition. The writ petition therefore, fails.

18. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 7-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)