Dildar Khan vs Rajasthan Public Service ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4274 Raj

[2023/RJJD/014198]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6529/2020

Dildar Khan S/o Mukbul Khan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o

Presently Residing At Ambica Bhojnalaya, Old Bus Stand, Jalore

Rajasthan. Permanent Address 913 Society Nagar Pali Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its

Secretary.

2. Director, State Of Rajasthan, Directorate Of Treasury And

Accounts, Rajasthan, 'vit-Bhawan' Jan Path, Jaipur

302015.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Rajesh Punia
                                 Mr. Nishant Bapna for
                                 Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG (for
                                 respondent No.2)

                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                              Order
09/05/2023
I.A.No.04/2023:

For the reasons stated, the application seeking leave to place

the letter dated 27.03.2023 on record, is allowed.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6529/2020:

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised

a grievance that appointments have been given to persons less

meritorious than him, but the same has been denied to him.

2. For the purpose of vying for the post of Junior Accountant in

furtherance of recruitment notification dated 16.04.2015, the

petitioner submitted his application form.

[2023/RJJD/014198] (2 of 8) [CW-6529/2020]

3. In the said application form, he indicated his two addresses;

against head 'present postal address': Ambica Bhawan Front of

Patrica Office, Old Bus Stand Jalore (Raj.) and against 'permanent

home address': 913, Society Nagar, Pali.

4. The petitioner appeared in the selection process and when

the result was declared (17.05.2018), he downloaded the

result/mark-sheet and came to know that he has secured merit

position No.2971. According to petitioner, on inquiry made by him

the RPSC stated that he will be duly informed about further

process.

5. When the petitioner did not hear anything from the

respondents only to learn that appointments have been given long

back and his candidature has been cancelled as he did not turn up

for document verification.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner

having secured good merit position was waiting for document

verification and posting and when he learnt that appointment

orders have already been issued to many other candidates., he

contacted the respondent-RPSC.

7. He asserted that the petitioner did not receive any intimation

regarding the date of document verification, though he had given

his address in the application form. Petitioner's right to get

appointment has been negated by the respondents conduct,

argued Mr. Sankhla.

[2023/RJJD/014198] (3 of 8) [CW-6529/2020]

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

respondents had sent the intimation to the petitioner at his Pali

address though he had clearly indicated that he has been residing

in Jalore for the last five years and that is, his postal address.

9. According to the petitioner, as the respondents had sent the

intimation about the date of document verification at a wrong

address, he could not appear in such process. Learned counsel for

the petitioner argued that because of the respondents' fault, the

petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

10. As against this, the State has come with a specific reply that

no candidate was informed by post about the date of document

verification and the intimation regarding eligible candidates called

for document verification was given by publishing the same on the

website of the Treasury & Accounts Department.

11. Inviting Court's attention towards para No.4 of the reply,

learned counsel for the respondents argued that as the petitioner

has come with wrong assertion of facts, the petition be dismissed

on this count alone.

12. Mr. Nishant Bapna, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-State invited Court's attention towards the documents,

which the petitioner has produced, more particularly photocopies

of the dispatch register and postal receipt (page No.75 and 76),

and submitted that the postal receipt is of 31.01.2019, in which

what was sent, was the rejection of communication dated

29.01.2019, whereby petitioner's candidature was rejected. He

submitted that merely because the letter was sent at petitioner's

[2023/RJJD/014198] (4 of 8) [CW-6529/2020]

Pali address, the petitioner cannot claim that the notice of

appearing in the document verification was sent and that too at

petitioner's Pali address to contend that he was not informed or

the intimation was not proper.

13. Mr. Sankhla, learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder

submitted that for whatever reasons, if the petitioner has not

appeared in the document verification, the Court should grant him

indulgence and direct the respondents to carry out petitioner's

document verification given that the petitioner is a meritorious

candidate.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following three

order/judgments:-

(i) Rajiya Begam Habshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors in

SBCWP No.12515/2017

(ii) Vana Ram Meghwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in

SBCWP No.13441/2017

(iii) Gunjan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in

SBCWP No.12826/2017

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

16. A perusal of ground 'B' mentioned in the memo of the

petition clearly indicates that the petitioner has come up with an

assertion that the respondents had wrongly sent the notice for

document verification at petitioner's Pali address.

[2023/RJJD/014198] (5 of 8) [CW-6529/2020]

17. In the face of the corresponding reply given by the

respondents that no intimation by post was given to individual

candidates and the same was published on website, no fault can

be found with the respondents. The petitioner, who is serving as

Senior Assistant in the State Government cannot be expected to

be negligent about his career and ignorant of the

notice/information published by the State on the website.

18. The petitioner having failed to take note of the notice

published by the Department has come with a wrong assertion of

fact that the respondents have informed him at a wrong address

whereas no intimation about the date of document verification was

ever sent by the respondents by post.

19. What has been placed by the petitioner on record, is the

receipt dated 31.01.2019, whereby the letter of rejection of

petitioner's candidature was sent by the respondents.

20. The photocopy of the Register, which the petitioner has

placed at page No.75 clearly shows the entries of 29.01.2019 and

if all the four entries of such date are examined, they clearly

suggest that they relate to orders that have been sent to all the

candidates, who have been selected after document verification.

21. Such entry, which has been made on 29.01.2019 has been

obviously made after publication of the list of rejected candidates

which includes the letter dated 29.01.2019, which has been sent

to the petitioner intimating rejection of his candidature.

[2023/RJJD/014198] (6 of 8) [CW-6529/2020]

22. On the basis of such documents at page No.75 and 76, the

petitioner cannot claim that the respondents have intimated each

candidate about the date and time of document verification by

post.

23. This Court is not much convinced with Mr. Sankhla's

submission that because the posts are still lying vacant, the

petitioner be given appointment. Merely because the posts are

lying vacant, the petitioner who has been negligent cannot be

given indulgence as prayed.

24. The Court has considered the judgments/orders cited by Mr.

Sankhla (noticed in para No.11 above).

25. The case of Rajiya Begam (supra), cannot be treated to be a

precedent, as the same is an interim order passed in peculiar facts

of the said case.

26. The second judgment in the case of Vana Ram (supra), has

been passed following the judgment in the case of Brijesh

Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SBCWP

No.18992/2017 dated 08.11.2017, passed at Jaipur Bench in

which the Court had granted indulgence to the candidates

appearing in Teacher Recruitment 2013, which were held by

different Zila Parishads. Considering that the petitioners before the

Court were the candidates whose names were first time included

in the second revised list, which came to be issued in October,

2017. The Court found that because of the publication of the

notice in the newspaper, many candidates could not appear for

document verification.

[2023/RJJD/014198] (7 of 8) [CW-6529/2020]

27. Having regard to fact that the candidates could not be

expected to keep eye on the newspaper for 4 years and so also

the fact that many candidates had left behind, the High Court

granted indulgence in the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra) and

following the same, in the case of Vana Ram Meghwal (supra), the

Court has directed the respondents to consider petitioner's

candidature.

28. The third judgment in the case of Gunjan Sharma (supra),

which has been relied upon by Mr. Sankhla is nothing but an order

passed in line with Vana Ram's judgment, following the judgment

passed in the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra).

29. The above cited judgments do not help the petitioner's case

as the first order is an interim order and the second and third

judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are

clearly distinguishable inasmuch as, in the petitioner's case, the

recruitment and document verification was not at different places,

whereas in the case of Teacher Recruitment 2013, due to

candidates applying at multiple places and due to large number of

candidates, publication in newspaper was not considered proper

intimation to the candidates.

30. That apart, a perusal of para No.3 of judgment in the case of

Vana Ram (supra) shows that rights of the candidates were

protected by way of an interim order and seats were ordered to be

kept vacant in their respective categories, whereas no interim

order was passed in petitioner's favour. As informed by the State,

[2023/RJJD/014198] (8 of 8) [CW-6529/2020]

recruitment is over and the State has sent the vacancy position for

initiation of fresh recruitment process.

31. It is rather surprising that after declaration of the reshuffled

result by the RPSC on 17.05.2018, the petitioner did not care to

follow up with the status of further process of the recruitment. He

has neither checked the website of respondent No.2 nor has he

made any inquiry. He has got up from his hibernation only in July,

2020.

32. The petitioner has categorically stated in para No.3 of the

memo of the writ petition that after declaration of result on

17.05.2018, he had obtained it from the official website of the

RPSC. One wonders that if the petitioner came to know about the

reshuffled result and has himself downloaded the same from

website of RPSC, how could he remain so indolent?

33. The petitioner himself is responsible for his failure to get

appointment.

34. As a result of discussion foregoing, this Court is firmly of the

view that the petitioner has been negligent in not keeping track of

the date of document verification and he has wrongly found fault

in the respondents' action.

35. The present writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

36. The stay petition also stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 37-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)