Silochana vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7202 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7202 Raj
Judgement Date : 14 September, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Silochana vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 14 September, 2023

Bench: Augustine George Masih, Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:29644-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 692/2023

Silochana W/o Late Shri Data Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Malwani, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.

3. Secretary, Subordinate Staff Selection Commission, Jaipur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Vinit Sanadhya

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

14/09/2023 (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order

dated 02.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby

the writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner praying for

issuance of directions to the respondents to change the marital

status of the appellant as 'Widow' instead of 'Married Woman' and

to consider her candidature in the Widow category being one since

her husband had died way back on 08.10.2009.

2. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant

stays in a village and with the assistance of E-mitra, her

application form was submitted online, where her status was

recorded as 'Married Woman' instead of 'OBC Widow'. This aspect

[2023:RJ-JD:29644-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-692/2023]

never came to notice of the appellant as in the admit card also, no

category was mentioned. Because of non-mentioning of the

category, the appellant only came to know of the said fact when

her result was finally declared. An application was moved

immediately for correction of the category, but the same was not

accepted.

3. Counsel further contends that although in the OBC Married

Woman category, the appellant does not make the grade,

however, in the category of Widow, she would be higher in merit

than the last selected candidate.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the

notice of the Court that the cut-off marks for a Widow category

candidate, who has been granted appointment, is 45.4915 marks

whereas the appellant has obtained 97.55 marks. He on this basis

contends that an error which had crept in while filling up the form

would virtually deny her an opportunity of appointment to the

category which she actually belongs. Prayer has, thus, been made

for accepting the present appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has

opposed the prayer made in this appeal by contending that

immediately after the issuance of the advertisement, it was clearly

mentioned therein that, if, there is an error which has crept in the

application form, which was filled up, the same would be corrected

within a period of one week from the last date of filling of the

application.

6. It was clearly mentioned that in case, the needful is not

done, there would be no further opportunity for rectifying the

mistake, if any. Another opportunity was also given after the

[2023:RJ-JD:29644-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-692/2023]

examination was held for correcting the error, if any, but the

appellant did not avail of this opportunity also. There was no

further opportunity, which would be granted to the appellant for

correction of the error and, therefore, the application which has

been submitted after declaration of the result could not be acted

upon.

7. Reference has also been made to a Division Bench judgment

of this Court in Piyush Kaviya & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public

Service Commission & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (W)

No.198/2018 and other connected matters decided on

10.04.2018 where similar issue has been considered and the

appeal has been rejected. He, therefore, prays that the present

appeal may be dismissed.

8. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and with their assistance have gone through the

pleadings and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. On consideration of the same, when the facts are not in

dispute, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal in light of the

judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Piyush Kaviya (supra), where similar prayer, as has been made

in the present appeal, was denied and the appeal was rejected.

The operative part thereof has been reproduced in the judgment

passed by the learned Single Judge which reads as follows:-

"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

[2023:RJ-JD:29644-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-692/2023]

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 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 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."