Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 October, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:33048] (1 of 6) [CW-13982/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13982/2023

Meena D/o Daula Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sita Bhawan, Ramesh Colony, Near Char Rasta, Raniwara Road, Sanchore, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Ayurved, Yog And Naturopathy, Yunani, Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush), Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Directorate Of Ayurved And Medical Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer.

3. Dr. Sarvapalli Radhkrishanan Rajasthan Ayurveda University, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar, Karwar, Nagaur Road, Jodhpur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :   Mr. Teja Ram.
For Respondent(s)            :   Mr. Suniel Purohit.
                                 Mr. Himanshu Shrimali.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

05/10/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer that

the candidature of the petitioner may be considered in OBC

(Female) category for recruitment to the post of Ayurved Medical

Officer pursuant to the advertisement No.2/2023.

Briefly the facts necessary to be noted are that the petitioner

being eligible for appointment to the post of Ayurved Medical

[2023:RJ-JD:33048] (2 of 6) [CW-13982/2023]

Officer submitted her application form for the same in pursuance

of the advertisement No.2/2023 issued in the month of June,

2023. The petitioner belongs to OBC Woman category. However, in

the application form, she mentioned her category as 'General'.

After the selection process was over, the respondents declared a

list of selected candidates for the post of Ayurved Medical Officer.

When the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of

selected candidates, she approached the respondents where she

was informed that since she had filled her category 'General' in

the application form, therefore, her candidature shall be

considered in 'General Women category'. She cannot be offered

appointment in 'OBC Woman category. Aggrieved against the

same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that

the petitioner is holding the certificate of OBC Woman category,

therefore, her candidature should be considered in OBC Woman

category only. He submits that by a bonafide mistake in the

application form, the category of the petitioner has been

mentioned as 'General Woman'. He, therefore, prays that the

respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of the

petitioner in OBC Woman category and grant her appointment on

the post of Ayurved Medical Officer.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that

the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner in

'General Woman' category only as per the category filled by her in

the application form. It is further contended that after the last

date of submission of the application form, two opportunities were

granted to all the candidates for making corrections, if any, in

[2023:RJ-JD:33048] (3 of 6) [CW-13982/2023]

their application forms but the petitioner failed to avail the

opportunities and appeared for verification of the documents with

the respondents. When the select list was declared, the petitioner

approached the respondents for change of her category from

'General Woman' to 'OBC Woman'. Learned counsel further submit

that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely

covered by a judgment of this court rendered in S.B.Civil Writ

Petition No.10617/2023 (Sumitra Bishnoi v/s State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 18.08.2023.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also

gone through the relevant record of the case.

The admitted facts in the present case are that the petitioner

being an eligible candidate submitted her application form for

appointment to the post of Ayurved Medical Officer in pursuance

of the advertisement No.2/2023 issued by the respondents. The

petitioner mentioned her category as 'General Woman'. The

respondents granted two opportunities to all the candidates like

the petitioner to make correction application forms filled in by

them. However, the petitioner did not avail the two opportunities

granted by the respondents and participated in the proceedings of

appointment without raising any objection to the same. Once, the

respondents declared the result, the petitioner approached the

respondents for change of her category. This court in the case of

Sumitra Bishnoi (supra) has held as under:-

"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

[2023:RJ-JD:33048] (4 of 6) [CW-13982/2023]

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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:33048] (5 of 6) [CW-13982/2023]

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 other category

which was not mentioned in the application form, in

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

the petitioner at this stage.

13. The writ petition, therefore, lacks of merit and

the same is hereby dismissed".

[2023:RJ-JD:33048] (6 of 6) [CW-13982/2023]

Thus, the respondents have not committed any wrong while

rejecting the request of the petitioner for change of her category

from 'General Woman' to OBC Woman. No interference is

warranted in the present case. Consequently, the present writ

petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.