Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1407 (RAJ)

Sangeeta Tailor v. State of Rajasthan

2021-08-06

INDERJEET SINGH

body2021
ORDER 1. In both these writ petitions since the relief claimed by the petitioners is identical in nature and pertain to the self same advertisement No.07/2018 dated 16.04.2018, hence with consent of the parties, both these writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by the present order. The prayer made in CWP-4551/2020 reads as under :- "Hence prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further pleased to direct the respondents to change the Preference of the petitioner for her posting and appointment on the post of Clerk Gr. II in Government Secretariat from Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Ajmer and the respondents may kindly be directed to issue fresh appointment order of the petitioner on the post of Clerk Gr. II at Government Secretariat on the basis of her higher marks to meet the ends of justice. For this act of kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray." 2. Brief & admitted facts of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred as the "Board") dated 16.04.2018, both the petitioners applied for the post of Clerk/L.D.C. Grade-II/Junior Assistant. As per the scheme of examination floated under the advertisement, the process of examination was divided in two phases; first phase for written examination and second phase for typing test. As alleged in the writ petition, the first phase of written examination was held on 16.09.2018. However, a corrigendum came to be issued on 01.03.2019 regarding increase in the number of posts. The result of first phase i.e. written examination was declared on 07.03.2019and of second phase i.e. typing was declared on 25.10.2019, however final result came to be issued on 14.02.2020. 3. The core issue which has been raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions is regarding change of their preference/choice. Admittedly both the petitioners in their preference/choice, submitted; first preference as 'RPSC, second as 'Subordinate Departments of Rajasthan' and third as 'Government Secretariat'. The common grievance of both the petitioners is that they may be allowed to change their preference (first preference) i.e. from 'RPSC to 'Government Secretariat'. Before dealing with the arguments of either side, it would be appropriate to make a mention of condition no. The common grievance of both the petitioners is that they may be allowed to change their preference (first preference) i.e. from 'RPSC to 'Government Secretariat'. Before dealing with the arguments of either side, it would be appropriate to make a mention of condition no. 17 of the advertisement which provides instructions for applying to seek corrections in the online application form and reads as under:- Vernacular Matter 4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the earlier recruitment held in the year 2013, in which an amendment was introduced by a further corrigendum, liberty was granted to the applicants for change of their preference/choice whereas in the present matter though further corrigendum was issued by the respondent but no liberty has been granted to the applicants for change in their preference/choice and the said action of the respondent in not allowing for change of preference/choice after issuance of further corrrigendum is arbitrary in nature. Counsel further submitted that the posts are still lying vacant in the Government Secretariat and if the petitioners are allowed to change their first preference as Government Secretariat in place of RPSC-earlier filled, no prejudice is going to be caused to the other candidates as the number of vacancies have been increased by issuance of a further corrigendum with regard to the category wise posts. Counsel further submitted that while considering the candidates for appointment, allocation of department for posting shall be made based on merit-cum-preference of the candidates and according to the petitioners' counsel the candidates who have secured lesser merit have been given appointment and posting at Government Secretariat while the petitioners have been denied the same and such action of the respondents is arbitrary in nature. Counsel further submitted that if the petitioners are not allowed to change their preference/choice, their future prospectus would be adversely affected and lastly prayed that the petitioners be permitted to change their preference/choice from 'RPSC to Government Secretariat and be posted accordingly. 5. In support of submissions, counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of State of Raj. & Anr. Vs. Datar Singh, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.875/2012 & other connected matters, decided on 31.07.2013 and also in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kirti, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.808/1997 & other connected matter, decided on 07.12.2001. & Anr. Vs. Datar Singh, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.875/2012 & other connected matters, decided on 31.07.2013 and also in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kirti, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.808/1997 & other connected matter, decided on 07.12.2001. Counsel further relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kavita Choudhary Vs. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017, decided on 01.11.2017. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that being conscious of the fact that any error may occur while submitting the online application form, sufficient opportunity was provided to the applicants under clause-17 of the advertisement prescribing a time limit of 7 days for seeking correction in the online application form but in the present matter both the petitioners failed to submit the application seeking correction in their online application form regarding change of their preference/ choice within the time limit stipulated under clause-17 of the advertisement and therefore at this belated stage they are not entitled to be permitted to make the corrections as prayed for in their preference/choice, contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Counsel further submitted that the Board is bound to complete the selection process as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement & also in a time bound manner. 7. In support of the submissions, counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 and further relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.804/2020, decided on 19.03.2021 wherein the earlier judgments passed in the matter of Kavita Choudhary (supra), Sonal Tyagi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7840/2019, decided on 12.07.2019 & Piyush Kaviya & Ors. Vs. RPSC & Ors., D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.198/2018, decided on 10.04.2018, have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court and while allowing the appeal filed by the RPSC held that the applicant-writ petitioner since failed to seek online correction within the period stipulated in the advertisement, the writ petition filed by the applicant-writ petitioner was liable to dismissed and was accordingly dismissed. 8. Appl. Writ No.198/2018, decided on 10.04.2018, have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court and while allowing the appeal filed by the RPSC held that the applicant-writ petitioner since failed to seek online correction within the period stipulated in the advertisement, the writ petition filed by the applicant-writ petitioner was liable to dismissed and was accordingly dismissed. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record including the judgments cited above by the parties. 9. Both the writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly it is for the recruiting authority to lay down the norms/terms & conditions in the advertisement and in the present matter, the recruiting authority being conscious of the fact that any error may occur in submitting the online application form, sufficient opportunity of seven days was made available to the applicants under clause-17 of the advertisement to make corrections in the online application form; secondly once the petitioners have participated in the selection process they are estopped to challenge the same; thirdly admittedly the petitioners failed to submit application for seeking correction/change in their preference/choice within a period of seven days as stipulated under clause-17 of the advertisement; lastly in view of the recent judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi (supra), in my view the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the present writ petitions. 10. In that view of the matter, the present writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.