Bhanwar Singh vs Rajasthan Public Service ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8893 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:36949]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4716/2020

Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Near Jogmaya Temple, Maderna Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Its Secretary, Ghoogra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.)

2. The Director, Directorate Of Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jog Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar for Mr. Hemant Choudhary Mr. Vinit Sanadhya Mr. Mahesh Thanvi

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

01/11/2023

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

that the respondents be directed to consider petitioner's

candidature qua the seats reserved for Economically Weaker

Section (EWS category) and the rejection of petitioner's request

vide SMS/order dated 04.03.2020 be quashed.

2. For the purpose of present controversy, the needful facts are

that an advertisement dated 13.04.2018 came to be issued by the

respondent - Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter

referred to as 'Commission') for filling up the post of School

Lecturer (History).

[2023:RJ-JD:36949] (2 of 7) [CW-4716/2020]

3. The petitioner submitted his online application form on

19.06.2018 as a 'General category' candidate.

4. During the period of recruitment, the State Government

introduced reservation for Economically Weaker Section by way of

notification dated 19.02.2019 and an principle decision was taken

that such reservation shall be provided to all the pending

recruitments.

5. It is a case set up by the petitioner that on 16.01.2020, a

press note was released by the respondent - Commission in which

the candidates were required to amend/correct their online

application forms within 10 days.

6. The petitioner has asserted that such press note was not

given wide publicity and no advertisement/information to this

effect was published in Jodhpur edition of the newspapers, due to

which the petitioner remained ignorant of the fact that he could

apply under Economically Weaker Section category and change his

category.

7. The petitioner has asserted that he had obtained an

'Economically Weaker Section Certificate' on 19.11.2019 and when

the window was opened (between 20.01.2020 to 29.01.2020), he

could not apply for correction in the application form owing to his

unawareness of such press release. It has been stated that as

soon as the petitioner learnt that such window had been provided

by the Commission, the petitioner moved a representation dated

10.02.2020 along with requisite fee of Rs. 300/-.

[2023:RJ-JD:36949] (3 of 7) [CW-4716/2020]

8. The petitioner's such request for correction in the category

came to be rejected by the respondents by way of an SMS dated

04.03.2020 which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

9. Mr. Jog Singh Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner argued

that it was incumbent upon the respondent - Commission to have

given wide publicity of the corrigendum dated 16.01.2020.

10. The petitioner had filed an affidavit and submitted that such

press note has not been published in any of the daily local

newspapers in circulation in Jodhpur district, where the petitioner

resides and therefore, the petitioner could not know about such

opportunity to correct application form as provided by the

respondent - Commission.

11. Learned counsel submitted that true it is, that written

examinations were held on 09.01.2020 but the window to correct

the category was opened between 20.01.2020 to 29.01.2020 and

since such information was not provided to the petitioner, he

could submit his application form along with the hard copy of the

certificate in the office of respondent-Commission only on

10.02.2020 and therefore, the respondent - Commission ought to

have considered the same objectively.

12. Learned counsel argued that when the petitioner had

requested the respondent-Commission to carry out change in his

category, the written examinations alone were held and the result

was not declared and therefore, the respondents should have

adopted objective approach and consider petitioner's candidature

as an Economically Weaker Section category candidate.

[2023:RJ-JD:36949] (4 of 7) [CW-4716/2020]

13. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon two

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

Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services

Selection Board & Anr., reported in 2016 4 SCC 754 and the

judgment in the case of Sweety Kumari Vs. State of Bihar &

Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1212.

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

Commission submitted that petitioner has simply produced before

the Court the press note dated 16.01.2020 and has totally

suppressed the fact that a corrigendum notification dated

19.09.2019 (Annexure R/1) was issued by the Commission. He

submitted that such corrigendum was given wide publicity and the

same was published on the official website of the Commission. He

submitted that all the candidates have corrected/amended their

online application forms when the window was opened for such

purpose.

15. The respondent - Commission has placed on record a letter

written by the Commission and news item published in the daily

newspaper showing that the information/notice to correct their

online application forms has been published.

16. It was submitted by Mr. Sanadhya that in order to give

benefits to left out candidates, a public notice dated 16.01.2020

was again issued in which 9 days window was provided to the

eligible candidates, but since the petitioner has failed to avail such

opportunity, he has to thank himself for his lapse. He argued that

petitioner's request which was submitted on 10.02.2020, after the

expiry of such window period, has rightly been rejected.

[2023:RJ-JD:36949] (5 of 7) [CW-4716/2020]

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

Commission relied upon judgment dated 10.04.2018 passed by

this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by D.B. Special Appeal

Writ No. 198/2018 : Piyush Kaviya & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan

Public Service Commission & Ors.

18. In rejoinder, Mr. Jog Singh Bhati, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that the advertisement/documents which the

respondent - Commission has placed on record only relates to

Ajmer and Jaipur regions and no document has been produced

evincing that such news item has been published in daily

newspapers having circulation in the District Jodhpur.

19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

20. It is clear from the record that by way of corrigendum of

notification dated 19.09.2019, the respondent - Commission has

extended time for submitting online application forms while giving

liberty to the candidates who have already filed application form to

correct their category, particularly Economically Weaker Section

category and a window for a period of 10 days after last date of

submitting application forms was provided.

21. The respondent - Commission yet again issued a press note

dated 16.01.2020 and called upon all the eligible candidates to

amend their online application forms by 29.01.2020.

22. The petitioner had admittedly failed to do the needful

pursuant to the opportunity provided by the respondent -

Commission.

[2023:RJ-JD:36949] (6 of 7) [CW-4716/2020]

23. The petitioner's request to correct his category came to be

received by the Commission as late as on 10.02.2020, after the

written examinations had been held on 09.01.2020.

24. The fact that such press note was published in the daily

newspapers for circulation in the District Jodhpur has not been

proved by the Commission and requisite evidence not produced by

the respondent - Commission. But, according to this Court, such

position would hardly have any bearing on the issue in hands,

particularly when respondent - Commission had issued

corrigendum of notification dated 19.09.2019 and press note

dated 16.01.2020 on its official website.

25. A candidate in the present era is supposed to keep track of

all the information and notifications issued by the recruiting

agency/employer-Commission in order to remain updated about

necessary information/action to be taken.

26. The respondent-Commission had given enough opportunities

to the candidates to correct their category and as the petitioner

himself failed to avail all such opportunities, he cannot claim any

right over the candidates who have done the needful in time.

27. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel

for the petitioners are concerned, the facts are clearly

distinguishable. In both the cited cases, the petitioners therein

had staked their claims towards the seats ear-marked for the

categories in which they fell, but omitted to file the certificates

and Hon'ble the Supreme Court in such situation has held that a

claim of a rightful candidate cannot be denied simply because he

had failed to furnish document or evidence at the relevant time.

[2023:RJ-JD:36949] (7 of 7) [CW-4716/2020]

Whereas, in the present case, the petitioner had even failed to

apply as an Economically Weaker Section category candidate.

28. Concededly, the application form which the petitioner had

submitted showed him to be a candidate of General category and

despite liberty being granted to him, he failed to get correction in

his online application form in relation to his category.

29. The Commission has done what was expected of it. This

Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the action of the

respondent - Commission, which turned down petitioner's request

for change in the category in the application form, as the same

was made after expiry of period provided for correction.

30. As a result of the discussion foregoing, the writ petition fails.

31. The stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 72-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)