Reena Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3649 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Reena Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 January, 2025

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                          JODHPUR
              D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1175/2024

Reena Choudhary daughter of Mahaveer Prashad Saharan, aged
about 33 years, Village Dhana Patta Satyon, Post Dhani
Kumharan,    Tehsil   Taranagar,     Dist.   Churu.    Application
No.202330097393
                                                     ----Appellant
                              Versus
1.    State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Ayruveda, Yoga And
      Naturopathy,    Unani,      Siddha    And    Homoeopathy,
      Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.    The Director, Department of Ayurved, Government of
      Rajasthan, Directorate, Ajmer (Raj.)
3.    The Director, Department of Homoeopathy, Government
      of Rajasthan, Directorate, Jaipur (Raj.).
4.    The Director, Department of Unani, Government of
      Rajasthan, Directorate, Jaipur (Raj.).
5.    The Registrar, Dr. Sarvpalliradhakrishan Rajasthan
      Ayruveda University Nagaur Road Karwad, Jodhpur.
6.    Kanha Ram son of Bhagwan Ram, VPO Uchchain, Tehsil
      Uchchain,        District       Bharatpur,       Application
      No.202330099740
7.    Ravinder Kumar son of Uday Singh, Village Jatka, Post
      Mahound, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, Application
      No.202330097385
                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. K.R. Saharan
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by
                                   Ms. Anita Rajpurohit
                                   Mr. Suniel Purohit

       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

Reportable 02/01/2025

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant

claiming the following relief(s):-

"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may most gracious enough to accept and allow this appeal while quashing and set aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in S.B.C.W.P. 10878/2024 titled as Reena Choudhary & Anr.

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB] (2 of 12) [SAW-1175/2024]

Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors, and the prayers of the writ petition may kindly be allowed as prayed by the appellant- petitioner. In alternate if during the pendency of the writ petition or otherwise the lower meritorious candidates then the petitioner, in Female Non Tsp Category had given appointment for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade then same may be quashed and setaside."

2. The controversy arose during the direct recruitment for the

post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade in pursuance of the

Advertisement No.1/2023 initiated by the respondent-Department

for TSP and non-TSP areas under the provisions of Rajasthan

Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate

Service Rules, 1966 ('the Rules of 1966') read with Section 210 of

the Amended Rules 2013 and the Amended Rules 2021. There

were total 1262 posts for the non-TSP area. The eligibility criteria

and all other necessary details were prescribed in the

Advertisement as per the Rules. The appellant having the

eligibility qualification for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior

Grade and having registration with Rajasthan Ayurveda Nursing

Council along with a diploma in Ayush Nursing and Pharmacy

applied online for the non-TSP area. Thereafter, an occasion arose

for correction in the application forms whereby, the appellant went

on to correct the year of diploma in the necessary examination.

3. Mr. K.R. Saharan, learned counsel for the appellant submits

that such correction was made, inadvertently, whereby the non-

TSP category got converted into TSP category. It was only at the

time of document verification, which took place from 02.07.2024

to 07.07.2024, that the appellant found that she was not in the

non-TSP category and her name has been included in the TSP

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB] (3 of 12) [SAW-1175/2024]

category. The appellant immediately approached the respondents

but her grievance was not redressed. The appellant admittedly

stood in the merits of the non-TSP category for the post in

question, however, less meritorious candidates were offered

appointment for the same.

3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a bona

fide and trivial mistake that happened during the course of

correction in the application form whereby the correction was

supposed to be limited to the year of qualification, however, the

column of TSP and non-TSP got affected and thereby the originally

correct information of non-TSP category got converted into TSP

category. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant

secured 51.13% and was placed at Serial No.19 in the OBC

category notwithstanding which, the less meritorious candidates

were given appointment.

3.2. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court rendered in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs.

The State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.1 of 2024, SLP (C)

No.12230 of 2023) decided on 02.01.2024, relevant portion of

which reads as follows:-

"20. In one of the cases cited as a precedent in the counter affidavit, before the High Court, Pankaj Paswan vs. State of Bihar Anr., 2015 SCC On Line Patna 8739, the State had taken a defence that many candidates applied in more than one place and hence there could be deliberate tweaking in the date of birth to take advantage of the selection process in more than one district or region. It is very important to notice that there is no such plea taken in the present case. If any such device or trick had been adopted, the State would have easily detected the same and placed the same

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB] (4 of 12) [SAW-1175/2024]

before the Court. The fact that the same has not been done shows that there was no trick or device resorted to by the appellant. It is a trivial error which appears to be a genuine and bona fide mistake. It will be unjust to penalise the appellant for the same.

25. On the peculiar facts of this case, considering the background in which the error occurred, we are inclined to set aside the cancellation. We are not impressed with the finding of the Division Bench that there was no prayer seeking quashment of the results declared over the web. A reading of the prayer clause in the writ petition indicates that the appellant did pray for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature treating his date of birth as 18.12.1997 and also sought for a direction for issuance of an appointment letter. A Writ Court has the power to mould the relief. Justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities.

Conclusion

26. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 1271 of 2019 dated 22.08.2022 and direct the respondent-State to treat the appellant as a candidate who has "passed", in the selection process held under the advertisement No. 1 of 2017 issued by the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Patna with the date of birth as 18.12.1997. We further direct that if the appellant is otherwise not disqualified, the case of the appellant be considered and necessary appointment letter issued. We further direct that, in the event of there being no vacancy, appointment letter will still have to be issued on the special facts of this case. We make the said direction, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We further direct that the State will be at liberty in that event to adjust the vacancy in the next recruitment that they may resort to in the coming years. We notice from the written submissions of the State that 21,391 vacancies have been notified in Advertisement No.1 of 2023 and it is stated that the procedure for selection is

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB] (5 of 12) [SAW-1175/2024]

ongoing. We place the said statement on record. We direct compliance to be made of the aforesaid direction within a period of four weeks from today.

27. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs."

3.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that such a trivial

mistake that too at the time of correction in the application form

ought to be ignored and an appropriate appointment as per the

eligibility should be given.

4. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General

assisted by Ms. Anita Rajpurohit and Mr. Suniel Purohit, opposes

any kind of relief to the present appellant on the ground that a

change in category is not trivial in nature and it instead amounts

to a correction which can majorly impact the recruitment.

4.1. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the

selection/recruitment processes are complicated and complex

procedures laid down as per the rules and intervention on count of

wrong information having been submitted, could be detrimental to

cause severe prejudice to the candidates already selected.

5. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties

observes that the recruitment of 2023 for the post of

Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade, was to culminate into

recruitment of 1262 posts which was later on reduced to 1015

posts. The appellant filled the application form for the said post

under the non-TSP category while holding the eligibility

qualification of three year diploma in Ayush Nursing Course and

also having registration with the Rajasthan Ayurveda Nursing

Council. However, unfortunately during the scheduled correction

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB] (6 of 12) [SAW-1175/2024]

process while correcting the year of qualification, the appellant

made a trivial mistake of changing the non-TSP category into TSP

category for no good reason, as neither she was having any kind

of authorization to go ahead in the TSP category nor did she aver

any claim over the TSP area.

5.1. This Court in light of the aforementioned, observes that in the

instant case, the following issue falls for determination of

controversy involved herein:

Whether the error committed in the application form

is a material or a trivial error and resultantly, whether

the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in

S.B.C.W.P. 10878/2024 is liable to be set aside?

5.2. This Court is conscious of the multifarious judgments passed

vis-a-vis the aforementioned issue by various learned Single and

Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court and therefore, before

deciding upon the claim of the appellant in the instant case, it

becomes pertinent to clear the position regarding the scope and

ambit of condonation when it comes to errors in the application

form by the candidates.

5.3. This Court is cognizant of the fact that, when it comes to

matters of public employment, with large number of applicants

applying and the cumbersome process of processing all the

applications being involved, in such cases, there has always been

conflict between merit and public interest (administrative

inconvenience). However, at the same time, it is also noteworthy

that not all errors are sufficient enough to reject the candidature

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB] (7 of 12) [SAW-1175/2024]

of a candidate and disregard the meritorious position that he/she

holds in the competitive examination.

5.4. This Court observes that, the learned counsel for the

respondents in the instant case has relied upon the judgment

rendered in the case of Piyush Kaviya & Ors. Vs. The

Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. [D.B. Special

Appeal (Writ) No.198/2018, decided on 10.04.2018], relevant

paras of which are reproduced as hereunder:

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB] (8 of 12) [SAW-1175/2024]

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.

33. The appeals are allowed. Impugned orders of even date i.e. 24.11.2017 are set aside. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4440/2017filed by Sajjan Singh, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10812/2017 filed by Birda Ram Bishnoi and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4466/2017 filed by Pushpendra Singh Rajawat are dismissed."

5.5. This Court however, is also conscious of the judgment

rendered in the case of Vashisht Narayan Kumar v. State of

Bihar, [Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 12230 of

2023, decided on 02-01-2024], relevant portions of which are

reproduced as follows:

15. Recently this Bench in Divya vs. Union of India & Ors., 2023:INSC:900 = 2023 (13) Scale 730, while declining relief to candidates who acquired eligibility after the date mentioned in the notification carved out a narrow exception. There, the judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors., [2016] SCC OnLine Del 6563, a case very similar to the facts of the present case, was noted. In Ajai Kumar Mishra (supra), Indira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in para 9 stated as under:-

9. It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/ or mis-

representation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, after a candidate has participated in the selection process

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB] (9 of 12) [SAW-1175/2024]

and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors." (emphasis supplied) The exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the reason that law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle is recognized in the legal maxim - De minimis non curat lex.

5.6. In light of both the aforementioned judgments, this Court

observes that though it is pertinent to ensure compliance with the

rules of the recruitment process vis-a-vis the filing of application

forms and the correctness in the information that a candidate is

required to provide; and that, the rendering of misleading or

wrong information is not acceptable, but at the same time it is

also important to understand that trifles cannot be allowed to

vitiate or invalidate the applications. Errors which are not

substantial or materially affecting the process and which are trivial

in nature are not good ground to reject application of an applicant.

The courts needs to draw a balance between the public interest

and the merit of an applicant keeping in mind the basic principles

of justice, which cannot be compromised by adopting a strict

positivist approach.

5.7. This Court observes that the present case is clearly

distinguishable from the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra), as in

that case the writ petitioners were negligent and while submitting

the online application forms they never disclosed that they were

non-gazetted Government employees. However, in the case at

hand, the appellant while filing the application form, applied for

non-TSP area only and was not negligent in that regard.

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-1175/2024]

5.7.1. This Court further observes that the facts of the present

case are distinct, starting with the nature of error, which was

inadvertent and without any malafide intention or negligence.

5.7.2. More so importantly, the mistake was trivial in nature,

which occurred during the course of correction in the application

form whereby the correction was supposed to be limited to the

year of qualification, however, the column of TSP and non-TSP got

affected and thereby the originally correct information of non-TSP

category got converted into TSP category.

5.7.3. This Court also observes that the appellant secured 51.13%

and was placed at Serial No.19 in the OBC category and therefore

mere technicalities should not be allowed to prejudice the merit

and affect the interest of justice.

5.7.4. This Court therefore observes that in light of the maxim, Di

minimis non-curat lex and, the interest of justice, the claim of the

appellant is sustainable.

6. In addition to the aforementioned observation, this Court

also asked the respondents whether any of the five reasons

namely; malafide intention, concealment, fraud, ineligibility

and non-qualifying on merit, was the reason while they were

opposing the correction of the trivial mistake. Learned counsel for

the respondents continued to oppose the rectification but at the

same time, could not point out anything affecting the aforesaid

five crucial factors, so as to oust the appellant from the selection

process, which could persuade this Court not to interfere in the

case at hand.

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-1175/2024]

7. This Court is of the view that the judgment of Hon'ble Apex

Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) is absolutely

applicable to the present case. The appellant had originally filled

the proper application form in the category of non-TSP and did not

have any malafide intention or an intention to commit fraud or

conceal any information regarding her eligibility, nor is there any

non-merit to her credit which could oust her from the recruitment.

Rather, she got to know about the error only at the stage of

document verification. The appellant scored 51.13% marks and

was placed at serial No.19 in OBC category and thereby, she also

came within the list of selected candidates.

7.1. Such a trivial mistake committed by the appellant is writ large

but no intention can be attributed to the appellant to have made a

correction of non-TSP to TSP. The original information was rightly

furnished and should have been considered. The

amended/rectified information did not have any ramification as far

as the candidature of the appellant is concerned which could have

given her any opportunity to avail any other benefit out of the

same during the course of such recruitment.

7.2. This Court is of an un-controverted view, that neither there

was any mal-intention on the part of the appellant nor was there

any concealment or any kind of fraud committed by her. This

Court while finding that the appellant is fully eligible to hold the

post in question in pursuance of the recruitment in process and

also while keeping into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) finds that the

appellant cannot be deprived of her appointment.

[2025:RJ-JD:142-DB] (12 of 12) [SAW-1175/2024]

8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed to the extent of

present appellant. The impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed

learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.10878/2024 is quashed and set aside. The

respondents are directed to give appointment to the appellant in

female non-TSP category for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior

Grade. Such appointment shall be given within a period of three

months from today, which shall be prospective in nature.

9. Although it is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate

General that recruitment process has completed, this Court

observes that the posts of Compounder/Nurse keep on recurring

in large numbers in respondent-Department and thus, the

respondents shall be required to utilise any post which is available

now, for the purpose of this order.

10. This order is passed only while keeping into consideration the

nature of recruitment and the large number of posts that are

available. The aforementioned directions given by this Court are

only for prospective appointment and no retrospective benefit

shall be given out of the same.

(REKHA BORANA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

9-Nirmala/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)