Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Asha Hadat vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 4 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:15510]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11289/2017
Asha Hadat D/o Heeralal Hadat, R/o Village Hadiwat Post Renta
Waya Vikasnagar, Teh Jotri, Dist. Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms Group-3
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dungarpur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
04/03/2025
1. The petitioner herein, an aspirant to become Lower Division
Clerk (LDC), pursuant to an advertisement dated 14.02.2013
(Annex.2), is before this Court, seeking an appropriate writ, order
and/or direction to the respondents to accord appointment to him
while considering his Post Graduate Diploma in Computer
Application (PGDCA) from Makhanlal Chaturvedi University, Bhopal
as valid.
[2025:RJ-JD:15510] (2 of 4) [CW-11289/2017]
2. The relevant facts shorn-of unnecessary details are that the
respondents issued an advertisement dated 14.02.2013 inviting
applications for the post of LDC. The petitioner applied for the
same and participated in the selection process. However, her
certificate of PGDCA was not taken into consideration on the
ground that the same was not obtained from a recognized
university. Hence, this petition.
3. The pointed stand taken by the respondents in their reply is
contained in para No.1 of the reply, which being apposite, is
reproduced hereunder:-
"1. That the Petitioner has not approached this
Hon'ble Court with clean hands. The Petitioner is guilty of
making concealment of material facts so also making
misstatements of fact. In this regard, it is submitted that
selection process in regard to present vacancy has already been
completed long back, therefore, there is no chance of
appointment of the Petitioner on the said post. Furthermore, a
standing, order has already been issued by the State of
Rajasthan for abolishing the unfilled vacancies, which are
unfilled due to any reason and same is not under challenged in
the Writ Petition. Moreover, a judgment has also been passed by
Hon'ble Court by specifying the direction to not appoint such
persons who are not eligible at last date of filing the application
form i.e. 22.03.2013. Therefore, the present writ petition liable
to be dismissed on this count alone. Furthermore, it is also
relevant to submit here that the SLP in regard to appointment on
the post of LDC based on bonus marks has now decided by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in favour of Answering Respondents and
now Answering Respondents completed the selection process in
accordance with law.
That it is also relevant to submit here that at the time of
filing the application form, Petitioner submitted her Computer
Certificate from Makhan Lal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita
Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal which is not recognized by either
University Grant Commission as well as circular issued by the
State of Rajasthan. Furthermore, the degree of the Petitioner
itself denote to the outside campus study center, therefore, it is
not valid as per law and as per rules and regulation of the
UGC. Admittedly, Petitioner hadn't eligible at the time of filing
the application form as well as at the time of verification of
documents, therefore, now she cannot claim her consideration.
Furthermore, even Petitioner doesn't have the certificate of RS-
[2025:RJ-JD:15510] (3 of 4) [CW-11289/2017]
CIT at the time of verification of documents. Hence, the present
Writ Petition is liable dismissed to be on this count alone.
Further, the contention of the Petitioner in regard to affiliation
of UGC is totally unfounded. In the case of "Professor Yashpal
Vs. State of Chhatishgarh" Hon'ble Court already held that
person who completed her computer course from above said
University is not valid. Further, till yet there is no adverse order
against the Petitioner, therefore, present Writ Petition is totally
premature. A relevant record in this regard are kept ready of
kind perusal of this Hon'ble High Court. Further, Petitioner did
not submit her application form with this present Writ Petition
and what qualification Petitioner has mentioned in her
application form is totally uncertain. Due to not submitting an
application form the present Writ Petition is liable to be
dismissed on this count alone.
That it is very outset to submit here that the present Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed on the count of delay and
latches also. Admittedly, when Petitioner's candidature was
rejected in the year 2013 itself then challenging the same in the
year 2017 clearly show the malafide intention of the Petitioner."
4. Moreover, at this belated stage, it is not feasible to assess
the merit of the petitioner, especially since the records related to
the selection process for unsuccessful candidates are no longer
available. As per well-established legal principles, an unsuccessful
candidate is not entitled to challenge the entire selection process
once it has reached its final conclusion.
5. In the absence of selection records, it is not possible to
substantiate the petitioner's claim of being more meritorious than
the selected candidates. Furthermore, none of the selected
candidates have been made a party to these proceedings. Same is
a significant omission. Be that as it may, since the relevant
records are not available, it is not possible to verify the
petitioner's merit or rank in comparison to the selected
candidates.
[2025:RJ-JD:15510] (4 of 4) [CW-11289/2017]
6. Additionally, I find myself in agreement with the
respondents' position, as outlined in their reply, which has not
been contradicted by the petitioner.
7. As an upshot, no grounds to interfere are made out.
8. Dismissed.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
85-SP/skm/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
