Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 670 (RAJ)

Jagdish Chandra Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-26

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) for the subject Social Studies. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.7.2018, the petitioner attempted to submit online application form for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II), however, on 20.8.2018 the server was down and, therefore, the form could not be submitted. Whereafter, the petitioner claims to have approached the respondents, however, his form was not taken. Whereafter, a notice dated 1.9.2018 from the counsel was got issued, which has also not been responded to. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of server being down, the petitioner could not apply within time prescribed for no fault of his and, therefore, his application should have been accepted by the respondents offline, which has not been done depriving the petitioner opportunity to apply for the post and, therefore, the action of the respondents deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents though earlier had sought time to file reply, however, made submissions that from the material available on record itself it is apparent that the petitioner himself is not sure as to what steps were taken by him for filling the online application form. It was submitted that the claim made is that attempt was made on 20.8.2018 when the server was down, however, the last date for filling the online application was 25.8.2018, as to what was done by the petitioner after 20.8.2018 to 25.8.2018 has not been indicated. 5. Further attention has been drawn to Annex.11 to Annex.13 to indicate that the said documents pertain to REET examination and has nothing to do with online application for Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) and, therefore, the submissions made in this regard being baseless, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The plea raised in the writ petition pertains to inability of the petitioner to fill online application form for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.7.2018, as it is claimed that on 20.8.2018 the server was down. 8. 7. The plea raised in the writ petition pertains to inability of the petitioner to fill online application form for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.7.2018, as it is claimed that on 20.8.2018 the server was down. 8. A perusal of the document Annex.11, which is apparently a communication by the E-Mitra Franchise, refers to application for REET form and the server being down. Whereafter the document Annex.12 pertains to fees of Rs. 200/- deposited for correction of certificate 2017 with the REET office and the so-called representation Annex.13 also pertains to REET 2017 and nowhere any of the documents relate to any attempt made on part of the petitioner to fill-up the online application form for Teacher Gr.III (Level-II). 9. There is also substance in submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents that if the server was down, the petitioner could very well apply for the same before the last date i.e. 25.8.2018, regarding which, no averment has been made in the writ petition. 10. In view of the above discussion, apparently the petitioner himself is confused as to whether he had attempted for filling up the online application form for Teacher Gr. III (Level-II) or for seeking correction in the REET form. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.