Vinod Kumar Saran vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6721 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27625]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8629/2023

Vinod Kumar Saran S/o Shri Bhanwer Singh, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Ratkuriya, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

3. Rajasthan Sub-Ordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Office At Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).

                                                                         ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)               :    Mr. Y.P. Khileree.
For Respondent(s)               :    Mr. Priyanshu Gopa for Mr. Vinit
                                     Sanadhya.



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                          Order

02/09/2023

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the

petitioner for the post of Upper Primary School Teacher (General /

Special Education) (Level-II, Class 6 to 8) Direct Recruitment -

2022 in the category as OBC (NCL) pursuant to the advertisement

dated 16.12.2022 (Annex.5).

2. Submissions have been made that pursuant to the

advertisement (Annex.5), the petitioner applied in the category of

OBC (NCL), which is reflected from Annex.-6.

[2023:RJ-JD:27625] (2 of 4) [CW-8629/2023]

3. The respondents then provided a window for making

correction in the already filled application form, wherein vide

Annex.7 due to inadvertence of E-mitra employee, his category

was changed from OBC (NCL) to General, based on which, his

mark-sheet dated 02.06.2023 (Annex.8) pertaining to written

examination has been published alongwith the result, wherein

though as OBC (NCL) candidate the petitioner falls in the cut-off,

as General category candidate, he has failed to make to the cut-

off and therefore, the petitioner made an application to the Staff

Selection Board ('the Board') seeking correction in the application

form and to consider his candidature as OBC (NCL), which has not

been responded to and therefore, the respondents be directed to

correct the category of the petitioner.

4. Though no reply to the petition has been filed, learned

counsel for the respondents relying on judgment in Tanuja Tiwari

v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.9263/2023, decided on

29.08.2023 made submissions that the Division Bench in the case

of Piyush Kaviya & Ors. v. RPSC & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal

(Writ) No.198/2018, decided on 10.04.2018, has laid down that

such corrections are not permissible after result has been declared

and therefore, the present petition deserves dismissal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that

due to inadvertence, the category was changed from OBC (NCL)

to General and as the respondents are still in the process of

document verification, they be directed to consider the

candidature of the petitioner as OBC (NCL) category.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

[2023:RJ-JD:27625] (3 of 4) [CW-8629/2023]

7. Admittedly, the petitioner filled up the application form on

02.01.2023 (Annex.6) as OBC (NCL) category candidate and on

26.01.2023 vide Annex.7 changed his category from OBC (NCL)

to General. The petition is conspicuously silent as to why the

petitioner at all open the correction window as it is claimed that

due to mistake of the E-mitra employee the category was

changed. Apparently, there was no occasion for the petitioner to

open the correction window and make the correction, if it was not

intended and therefore, the change in the category by the

petitioner is voluntary and deliberate.

8. Further, after the application was made on 26.01.2023, the

written examination was held, for which purpose admit card was

issued to the petitioner, wherein also his category indicated was

General, however, the petitioner did not chose to change his

category even at that stage also and after the result has been

declared on 02.06.2023 (Annex.9) then the issue has been raised,

for which, there is apparently no reason / logic on part of the

petitioner in first changing the category and then seeking a

direction for restoring back to the earlier category.

8. The Division Bench in the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra),

which has been followed in the case of Tanuja Tiwari (supra),

inter-alia, laid down as under :-

"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

[2023:RJ-JD:27625] (4 of 4) [CW-8629/2023]

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 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."

9. In view of the above fact situation, wherein the petitioner

admittedly himself changed the category from OBC (NCL) to

General, no case for interference is made out in the petition, the

same is, therefore, dismissed.

10. It goes without saying that if the petitioner falls in General

(Ex-Serviceman) category, which it is claimed, is not disputed, his

case may be considered in the said category.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 20-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)