Natwar Singh Shekhawat S/O Shri Kishore ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2024 Latest Caselaw 876 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Natwar Singh Shekhawat S/O Shri Kishore ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 February, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:4898]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13582/2021
Natwar Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Kishore Singh Shekhawat,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo- Rundal, Via- Morija, Distt. -
Jaipur-303805, Rajasthan.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
         Department Of Personnel And Training, Government
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Chairman,
         Jaipur Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305001.
3.       Commercial Tax Department, Rajasthan, Through
         Commissioner, Kar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road,
         Ambedkar Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Ajatshatru Mina
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. S. S. Raghav, AAG
                                    Mr. M. F. Baig
                                    Mr. Ayush Singh with
                                    Mr. Alfahad Jaman for
                                    Mr. Punit Singhvi


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
                             Order
Reportable
Reserved on                  09/01/2024
Pronounced on                06/02/2024

1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"A. To direct the Department of Personnel and Training, Rajasthan to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of "Junior Commercial Taxes Officer" after treating his preference of department as "Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Sub- ordinate Services".

B. To allow the petitioner to rectify the error committed in detailed application form under the section of "Preference of Department" and petitioner may be allowed to mark his preference as "Rajasthan Commercial Taxes sub-ordinate Services.

c. To direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner as granted to similarly situated candidates.

d. To pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit, just and necessary."

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (2 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

2. The ineluctable and concise factual matrix of the instant

petition, necessary for its just and efficacious disposal, is noted

herein-under:-

2.1 That on 02.04.2018, the respondent-RPSC issued an

advertisement for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services

Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2018.

2.2 That vide said advertisement, DC i.e. Departmental

Candidates and ME i.e. Ministerial Employees, were eligible to

apply only for the Sub-ordinate Services in their respective

departments of employment. In essence, the ministerial employee

of the concerned department could only apply in their respective

department, where they were rendering their services.

2.3 That on 25.05.2018, the petitioner submitted his application

form wherein, he clearly stated that he is working as a Ministerial

Employee (ME) and hence, is eligible for the Departmental

Candidate (DC) Quota.

2.4 That on 31.05.2019, the respondent-RPSC published the

result for the preliminary round, wherein all the candidates were

declared successful, irrespective of their parent department.

2.5 That the aforesaid action of the respondent-RPSC in selecting

all the candidates irrespective of taking note of their parent

department was challenged before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 7737/2020 titled as Prem Singh Rathore vs.

State of Rajasthan. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.12.2020, the

said petition was allowed in light of the undertaking furnished by

the respondent-RPSC that the result of the preliminary

examination would be revised and published after duly verifying

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (3 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

the status of Departmental Candidate (DC) category of the

applicants.

2.6 That on 12.03.2021, in compliance of the aforementioned

order dated 16.12.2020, the respondent-RPSC, after due

verification, published a merit list for the preliminary examination

for the candidates in the Ex-Army, Departmental Candidate (DC)

and Outstanding Sportsman categories. Resultantly, the petitioner

got selected in the DC Category bearing Roll No. 816582.

2.7 That the petitioner, after getting selected in the main list,

submitted his Detailed Application Form (DAP) wherein he

specifically mentioned that he is applying under the DC Category

whilst mentioning his department of previous employment being

the Rajasthan Commercial Department. However, inadvertently,

the petitioner clicked on the State Services Column as opposed to

the Sub-ordinate Services Column.

2.8 That the petitioner was declared successful in the interview

in the GE, DC and ME Category. He secured 287.25 marks and 7 th

Rank in the DC Category.

2.9 That on 25.08.2021, despite being successful, the

respondent-RPSC did not call the petitioner for the medical

examination, whilst calling the other candidates from the DC

Category.

2.10 That being aggrieved, on 27.08.2021, the petitioner

immediately submitted a representation before the respondent-

RPSC. However, no heed was paid to the same.

2.11 That on 03.12.2021, the petitioner preferred the instant writ

petition, wherein this Court, vide interim order dated 03.12.2021,

directed the respondent-RPSC to keep one post of Junior

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (4 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

Commercial Taxes Officer vacant, till the final disposal of the

instant petition.

2.12 That on 26.12.2021, the respondent-RPSC issued the

appointment orders of all the other candidates of the DC Category.

In the said order, at point No.2, the respondent-RPSC kept one

seat vacant, in pursuance of the interim order dated 03.12.2021.

3. In this factual background, it is submitted by learned

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is aggrieved by

the rejection of his candidature from the instant recruitment

process, on account of a mere human error committed while filling

up the Detailed Application Form (DAP). It is averred that in the

said form, the petitioner specifically mentioned that he is applying

under the DC Category whilst mentioning his department of

previous employment being the Rajasthan Commercial

Department. However, inadvertently, the only error crept in when

the petitioner clicked on the State Services Column as opposed to

the Sub-ordinate Services Column. Therefore, the inadvertent and

bonafide mistake committed by the petitioner ought to be

condoned as the same shall not cause any prejudice to third party

rights, especially in light of the interim protection granted by this

Court vide order 03.12.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that the petitioner is substantively appointed as a Ministerial

Employee with the Rajasthan Commercial Tax Department and is

governed by the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service

(General Branch) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter, Rules of 1975).

Moreover, in the advertisement so issued by the respondent-RPSC,

it was expressly stated that for availing the DC quota, the

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (5 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

ministerial employees of the concerned department could apply in

their parent department, where they were rendering their

services. Accordingly, the petitioner applied and was even declared

successful in the interview in the DC Category. He secured 287.25

marks and 7th Rank in the DC Category. However, the petitioner

was not called for the medical examination, on account of the

inadvertent error of clicking on the State Services Column as

opposed to the Sub-ordinate Services Column, whilst filling up the

Detailed Application Form (DAP). In light of the aforesaid, it was

argued that substantive rights of the petitioner cannot be

disregarded merely on account of technical errors, especially when

the error was bonafide in nature and no third party rights shall be

disturbed/affected. In support of the said submissions, reliance

was placed upon the dictum of this Court as enunciated in D.B.

SAW No. 1700/2017 titled as Kavita Choudhary vs. The

Registrar (Exam.), Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC

has submitted that by way of the instant petition, the petitioner

has sought directions against the respondent-RPSC to consider the

candidature of the petitioner on the post of Junior Commercial

Taxes Officer after treating his preference of department as

"Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services". The

petitioner has further prayed for rectification of the error

committed by him in the Detailed Application Form (DAP) under

the section of "Preference of Department" qua which he has

sought directions to be allowed to mark his preference as

"Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services". In this

regard, learned counsel submitted that in the Detailed Application

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (6 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

Form (DAP), the petitioner admittedly did not furnish any

preference of Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services.

Therefore, since the petitioner failed to furnish any preference qua

the said sub-ordinate services, he could not have been allotted the

said services and resultantly, the petitioner cannot claim for

rectifying the error committed by him at this belated stage. Thus,

the petitioner himself is responsible for not being allotted the

Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services and as a result,

he cannot seek directions from this court for his own lapses. As a

result, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. In addition to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the

respondent-RPSC placed reliance upon Rule 20(3) of the

Rajasthan State and Sub-ordinate Services (Direct Recruitment

Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 and contended that the

order of preference once exercised by a candidate cannot be

changed. Therefore, the preference of services furnished by the

petitioner in the Detailed Application Form (DAP) was final and as

a result, he cannot claim for any rectification at a belated stage.

To further draw out a case for delay on part of the petitioner,

learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC argued that in the

advertisement so issued on 02.04.2018, the RPSC granted 7 day's

time to the applicants to rectify their mistakes in the filling up of

the application form. However, the said option was not exercised

by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to rectify

his mistake at a belated stage, especially in an examination which

affects the public at large whilst creating third party rights for the

other candidates. In support of the arguments noted herein-

above, reliance was placed upon the dictum of this Court as

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (7 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

enunciated in D.B. SAW No. 9382/2020 titled as Ashish

Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan as well as the judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Public

Service Commission vs. Manish Bakawale: Civil Appeal No.

7721/2021 and Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. UPSC and

Ors.: Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 11977-

11978/2012.

7. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for

both the sides, scanned the record of the petition and perused the

judgments cited at Bar.

8. At the outset, prior to the discussion on merits, this Court

deems it appropriate to take note of the material stipulations, as

prescribed by the advertisement dated 02.04.2018. They are

noted herein-under:-

8.1 That the advertisement dated 02.04.2018 was issued for the

examination of State and Subordinate Services.

8.2 That vide said advertisement, the Departmental Candidates

(DC) and Ministerial Employees (ME) were only eligible to apply

for sub-ordinate services within their respective departments of

employment. Resultantly, the ministerial employee of the

concerned department could only apply in his/her department of

employment. In this regard, the following note was incorporated in

the advertisement dated 02.04.2018, as reproduced herein-under:

"fo'ks"k uksV%& v/khuLFk lsokvksa ds Øe la[;k 5 ls 8 ,ao 13 ds inksa esa gh

foHkkxh; deZpkfj;ksa gsrq in vkjf{kr gSA vr% bu vkjf{kr inksa gsrq lacaf/kr

foHkkx esa dk;Zjr ea=kyf;d deZpkjh gh vkosnu djsa ,oa vkosnu i= ds

dkWye esa Mhlh ¼foHkkxh; deZpkjh½ dk mYys[k vo'; djsa] vU;Fkk Mhlh

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (8 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

oxZ dk ykHk ns; ugha gksXkkA vU; foHkkxksa esa dk;Zjr dkfeZd ;fn bl oxZ

gsrq vkosnu djrs gSa rks mUgsa bl oxZ Mhlh gsrq ik= ugha ekuk tk,xkA ".

9. In this regard, upon a perusal of Annexure-1 i.e. the

petitioner's application form on the Online Recruitment Portal, it is

noted that whilst filling up the said form, under the head of

'Special Category', the petitioner has expressly stated himself to

be a Departmental Candidate (DC). At the same time, in the said

form, the petitioner has also duly penned down the name of his

department of employment to be the 'Rajasthan Commercial Taxes

Subordinate Service'.

10. The aforesaid fact of the petitioner being a

Departmental Candidate (DC) duly rendering his service with the

Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service is further re-

iterated and/or established by the fact that pursuant to the

declaration of the result of the preliminary round by the

respondent-RPSC wherein all candidates were declared successful

irrespective of their parent department, a challenge was raised

before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7737/2020

titled as Prem Singh Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan

challenging the impugned action of the respondent-RPSC declaring

all candidates to be successful without having checked and/or

taken note of their status as a Departmental Candidate. The said

petition was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2020 in light of the

undertaking furnished by the respondent-RPSC that the result of

the preliminary examination would be revised and published after

duly verifying the status of Departmental Candidates (DC)

category of the applicants/candidates. Thereafter, in compliance of

the aforementioned order dated 16.12.2020, the respondent-RPSC

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (9 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

published a merit list for the preliminary examination on

12.03.2021 for the candidates in the Ex-Army, Departmental

Candidate (DC) and Outstanding Sportsman categories wherein

after the due verification of the status of falling within the

Departmental Candidate (DC) category, the petitioner got selected

in the DC Category bearing Roll No. 816582.

11. In pursuance to the declaration of the merit list for the

preliminary examination on 12.03.2021, the petitioner submitted

his Detailed Application Form (DAP) i.e. Annexure-6, wherein he

specifically/expressly mentioned that he is applying in the

category of Departmental Candidate (DC). At the same time, the

petitioner also duly mentioned that he is rendering his services in

the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service. However,

due to an inadvertent mistake, the petitioner under the head of

'Department of Preference', selected the 'State Services' column

as opposed to the option of 'Sub-ordinate services', in which the

petitioner was rendering his services. Therefore, on account of the

same, despite having been declared successful in the interview of

the Departmental Candidate (DC) category, the respondent-RPSC

did not call the petitioner for the medical examination whilst

calling all the other candidates from the DC category.

12. Therefore, merely on account of an inadvertent and

bonafide mistake, on account of which the petitioner wrongly

selected the Department of Preference as State Services as

opposed to Sub-ordinate Services in the Detailed Application Form

(DAP), the petitioner cannot be precluded from appearing in the

medical examination and/or the subsequent appointment,

especially when the petitioner has been meritorious in the

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (10 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

preliminary round as is reflected vide merit list dated 12.03.2021

as well as the interview conducted in pursuance thereof, wherein

the petitioner was declared successful, having secured 287.25

marks and the 7th Rank in the Departmental Candidate (DC)

Category.

13. In addition to the aforesaid, it is also noted that the

petitioner is a substantively appointed Ministerial Employee of the

Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department, who is governed by the

Rules of 1975. Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1975 mandates that

12.5% quota for appointment on the post of "Junior Commercial

Tax Officer" is reserved for ministerial staff of the Rajasthan

Commercial Tax Sub-ordinate Services only and no other cadre of

Departmental Candidate was eligible for the said quota. The said

provision is reproduced herein-under:-

"Methods of Recruitment:- Recruitment to the service after the commencement of these rules, shall be made by the following methods in the proportions indicated in Column 3 of the schedule:-

(a) by directed recruitment in accordance with part IV of these rules; provided that 12.5% of the posts of "Junior Commercial Taxes Officer" to be filed in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the Ministerial Staff of the Commercial Taxes Department holding a post in the cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the rules. The reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.

"Providing that two posts of "Junior Commercial Taxes Officer" shall be reserved for being filled in by promotion from amongst Jamadars of the Commercial Taxes Department subject to their fulfilling qualifications equivalent to Higher Secondary Examination and if they have put in not less than 10 years shall be no further promotion till this reserved quota is filled up."

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (11 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

14. It is noted that the object of the aforementioned Rule 6

of the Rules of 1975 providing reservation for ministerial staff is to

accord the opportunity to the ministerial employees to get

accelerated promotion on the post of 'Junior Commercial Taxes

Officer', after passing the examination in an open competition.

Following the said mandate, at every step of the instant

recruitment process, as noted above, the petitioner has informed

the respondent-RPSC about being Departmental Candidate (DC) in

the Department of Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate

Service. In addition to the same, even the respondent-RPSC itself

treated the petitioner to be a Departmental Candidate (DC) on the

basis of the information furnished by the petitioner in the instant

recruitment process, as is reflected vide merit list dated

12.03.2021. Therefore, denying petitioner the appointment on

account of a mere human error of inadvertently and bonafidely

having selected the wrong Department of Preference i.e. instead

of Sub-ordinate Services, the petitioner opted for State Services,

the petitioner who is meritorious and has categorically at every

step of the way declared his department as well as his status as a

Departmental Candidate, cannot be denied appointment on the

post so advertised.

15. Furthermore, the special note incorporated in the

advertisement dated 02.04.2018 (Re: Page 131) specifically

mandates that the ministerial employee of the said department

shall qualify in his own respective department only, for the

purpose of availing the quota of Department Candidate (DC)

category. Therefore, it is clear that as per the terms of the

advertisement, the quota of Departmental Candidate (DC)

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (12 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

category is available only for the sub-ordinate services in the

respective department. Therefore, considering that the petitioner

in his Detailed Application Form (DAP) specifically mentioned that

he falls under the Departmental Candidate (DC) category and also

mentioned the name of his department i.e. Rajasthan Commercial

Taxes, it becomes abundantly clear that the petitioner at every

stage of the recruitment process informed the respondent-RPSC

regarding his status of being a Departmental Candidate (DC).

Thus, non-consideration of the petitioner under the Departmental

Candidate (DC) category simply on account of a technical error of

not clicking against the name of the 'Rajasthan Commercial Taxes

Sub-ordinate Services' as opposed to clicking on 'Rajasthan

Commercial Taxes Service (State Service)', the petitioner cannot

be denied appointment, having established his meritorious

candidature as well as his status as Departmental Candidate (DC),

which has been duly recognized even by the respondent-RPSC

itself.

16. Furthermore, it is also noted that the rejection of the

petitioner's candidature shall also be contrary to the doctrine of

legitimate expectation as well as the doctrine of meritocracy, as

the petitioner has remained diligent throughout the recruitment

process and has always furnished the correct information with

respect to his candidature. Being a meritorious candidate, who has

been verified as a Departmental Candidate (DC) by the

respondent-RPSC itself, the mere human error of wrongly marking

the preference of service at Page 51 of the petition i.e. Detailed

Application Form (DAP) cannot be a ground for ousting the

petitioner from the recruitment process, where he is otherwise

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (13 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

completely eligible. The said ousting from the recruitment process

shall prejudice the rights of the petitioner as conferred upon him

by Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

17. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to

place reliance upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court as enunciated in Kavita Choudhary (Supra). In the

said judgement, this Court allowed rectification of the error

committed in the filling up of the application form where the

candidate was disentitled from claiming the benefits of reservation

for which she/her was otherwise entitled to, whilst noting that a

bonafide mistake which does not prejudice a third party should be

allowed to be cured. The relevant extract is reproduced herein-

under:-

"8. Mistakes can be of two kinds. First kind would be where nobody is affected by a mistake. The second is where a third party is affected by a mistake.

9. The difference in the two mistakes would be that whereas rectification of the first would cause no prejudice, rectification of the second would cause a prejudice.

10. We find in the decisions dated 31.07.2013 in D.B.S.A.W No.875/2012, State of Rajasthan Vs. Datar Singh, dated 11.10.2017 in S.B.C.W.P No.7159/2017, Dinesh Kumar Mahawar Vs. RPSC & Ors., dated 27.01.2017 in S.B.C.W.P No.906/2017, Shimala Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dated 24.11.2016 in S.B.C.W.P No.15654/2016, Sapana Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P.(Civil) No.3721/2017, Arkshit Kapoor Vs. Union of India & Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P. (Civil) No.11642/2016, Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors., passed by this Court and the Delhi High Court, the consistent view taken is that a bonafide mistake which does not affect a third party right should be allowed to be cured.

11. We dispose of the appeal directing that the appellant be treated as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (14 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

candidate and we permit her to participate in the further selection process. Needless to state the respondents would be entitled to verify the certificate submitted by the appellant."

18. Even in the facts and circumstances of the instant

petition, no rights accruing to any third-parties are

affected/prejudiced. In this regard, it is noted that the

respondent-RPSC issued a letter dated 25.08.2021, wherein the

petitioner was not called for the medical examination despite

being meritorious in the interview. Consequently, the petitioner

preferred the instant petition seeking a writ of mandamus to issue

appointment in favour of the petitioner on the post of Junior Taxes

Commercial Officer. When the petition came up on a stay

application, this Court vide order dated 03.12.2021, directed the

respondent-RPSC to keep a seat vacant for the petitioner till the

final disposal of the petition. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner

submitted a representation before the respondent-RPSC informing

them regarding the said interim protection granted vide order

dated 03.12.2021. Thereafter, considering the said representation,

the respondent-RPSC issued appointment orders for the other

selected candidates vide order dated 26.12.2021. In the said

appointment orders, at Point No.2, the respondents kept one seat

vacant, in light of the order granting interim protection dated

03.12.2021. Thus, it is evident that the respondent-RPSC have

kept one seat vacant and have not created any third-party rights

on the seat of the petitioner.

19. At this juncture, this Court also deems it appropriate to

note that the argument advanced by learned counsel for the

respondent-RPSC regarding the petitioner approaching the Court

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (15 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

at a belated stage cannot be countenanced. In this regard, it is

noted that the period of 7 days for rectifying the application form

was only applicable for the submission of the initial application

form in the Year 2018. The said application form was submitted by

the petitioner on 25.05.2018, which did not require any

rectification. The dispute in the instant petition revolves around

the incorrect marking of preferences in the Detailed Application

Form (DAP), which was filled up on 25.03.2021. In the said

Detailed Application Form (DAP), there was no direction regarding

the rectification of mistakes within a stipulated time frame and/or

mechanism. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned

counsel for the respondent-RPSC qua the petitioner approaching

the Court at a belated stage, is factually untenable.

20. Lastly, this Court deems it appropriate to note that the

argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC

that as per Rule 20(3) of the Rules of 1999, the order of

preference once exercised cannot be changed, is not worthy of

being countenanced. In this regard, it is noted that as per Rule 20

of the Rules of 1999, it is abundantly clear that the said Rule is

subject to the reservation to OBC/SC/ST,NGE, Women Candidates,

physically handicapped person, ministerial staff, in respect of

posts included in Schedule-I and Schedule-II. Therefore, the

provision of marking preference cannot be given beyond the

category of the candidate i.e. Departmental Candidate (DC).

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the

rule of preference is not applicable to the petitioner as his

candidature is confined to sub-ordinate service in the Department

of Rajasthan Commercial Taxes. The mere marking of other

[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (16 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]

departments or service would not entitle him any preference in

the other department or state service. Therefore, the argument

advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC is not

legally tenable.

21. Thus, non-consideration of the petitioner under the

Departmental Candidate (DC) category simply on account of a

technical error of not clicking against the name of the 'Rajasthan

Commercial Taxes Sub-ordinate Services' as opposed to clicking

on 'Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Service (State Service)', the

petitioner cannot be denied appointment, having already

established his meritorious candidature as well as his status as a

Departmental Candidate (DC), which has been duly recognized by

the respondent-RPSC itself.

22. Conclusively, it is noted that to err is human and to

forgive, is divine.

23. Accordingly, in light of the observations made herein-

above, the petition is allowed in terms of the prayers so made,

including the grant of all consequential benefits within a period of

three months. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja /364

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)