Shrawan Kumar Khokhar Son Of Shri Hafool ... vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1814 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Shrawan Kumar Khokhar Son Of Shri Hafool ... vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission ... on 14 March, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:12964]                      (1 of 3)                       [CW-2754/2024]


        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2754/2024

Shrawan Kumar Khokhar Son Of Shri Hafool Singh, Aged About
38 Years, Resident Of 2A, Anand Vihar Vistar, Nangal Jaisa
Bhora, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012 (Raj.)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
Rajasthan      Public    Service       Commission,            Ajmer   Through    Its
Secretary, Ghoghra Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain with Mr. Apporv Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

14/03/2024

1. By way of the present petition, it is prayed that the

respondents be directed to permit the petitioner for changing the

subject so opted in the application form for the post of Assistant

Professor (History), from 'Art History' to 'History', which was filled

incorrectly on account of an inadvertent mistake.

2. In support of the prayer made, learned counsel for the

petitioner placed reliance upon the dictum of this Court as

enunciated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6820/2021 titled as

Pramod Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board

decided on 24.02.2023 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.3162/2023 titled as Sarita Birda & Anr. Vs. Rajasthan

Staff Selection Board & Anr. decided on 22.09.2021. While

[2024:RJ-JP:12964] (2 of 3) [CW-2754/2024]

placing reliance upon the said judgments, learned counsel

submitted that on erstwhile occasions, when the mistakes were

bonafide and no third-party rights had been created, this Court

has permitted the change of subject in the application form.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed

the prayer advanced by the petitioner. However, he could not

distinguish the factual matrix of the instant petition from that of

the judgments cited above. Learned counsel also duly conceded to

the fact that as on date, no third party rights have been created,

as the result of the preliminary examination is still awaited.

4. Heard and considered.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and

after having perused through the record and also, the judgments

cited at Bar, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition, for

the following reasons:-

5.1 That in Pramod Kumar (Supra) and Sarita Birda

(Supra), this Court has on previous occasions, in

indistinguishable factual matrices, permitted the change of subject

in the application form, especially when the mistake was

inadvertent and bonafide and no third party rights had been

created.

5.2 That as on date, admittedly, no third party rights have been

created, as the result of the preliminary examination is still

awaited.

5.3 That upon a perusal of the record, it appears that the

mistake was bonafide in nature.

[2024:RJ-JP:12964] (3 of 3) [CW-2754/2024]

6. Accordingly, in light of the observations made herein-above,

the instant petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

JKP/1064

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)