Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1051 (RAJ)

Neer Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-04-01

SAMEER JAIN

body2022
JUDGMENT Sameer Jain, J. - The present writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ order or direction for giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III, considering him in the category of OBC Non Creamy layer in the light of direction given in the case of Kavita Choudhary vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & anr., D.B. Civil Special appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017 decided on 01.11.2017. Further, by the present writ petition, order dated 17.04.2018 is prayed to be quashed and set aside whereby, the respondents have rejected the candidature of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuant to one advertisement dated 11.09.2017 for the post of Teacher Grade-III, the petitioner applied under the category of OBC Creamy layer as per annexure-2 by e-mitra facility. The petitioner was allotted admission card and roll no. under OBC Creamy Layer category. He submits that it was by mistake on the part of e-mitra centre that his application was enrolled under OBC Creamy Layer category whereas, he belongs to OBC Non Creamy layer category and as such, he has filed one representation to the respondents for amending the said category. When the same was not amended, he filed one S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2707/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2018 with the direction to file a representation to the respondents in the light of Kavita Choudhary's case (supra), if the petitioner is found to be covered by the same. 3. On consideration of the said representation, vide order dated 17.04.2018 (annexure-9), the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner relying upon the advertisement dated 11.09.2017 and the terms and conditions issued therein, whereby by virtue of Special Note No. IV, VII & IX, it was specifically mentioned that upon submission of online application form, the same cannot be changed, if there is certain irregularity and if, the final application form is submitted, the contents of the last submitted application will be considered. It was also further clarified in the advertisement that if any wrong or incomplete information is given, the applicant will be responsible for the same and without any notice, the application form can be rejected. It was also further clarified in the advertisement that if any wrong or incomplete information is given, the applicant will be responsible for the same and without any notice, the application form can be rejected. The respondents have also relied upon the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in SBCWP Nos.17840/2016 titled Bharti Chauhan vs. State and 3605/2017 titled Priyanka Jangir vs. State wherein, in the similar matters, it was held that the writ petitions cannot be entertained for the change in category at belated stage. Relying upon the same, the petitioner's representation was rejected. 4. Learned counsel has further relied upon annexure-10, which shows that the respondents have taken a biased view and vide order dated 28.03.2018, changed the category of eight candidates and therefore, hostile discrimination and bias is caused. In the present scenario, the present writ petition was filed wherein, the Hon'ble Court has passed ex-parte interim order dated 01.05.2018 and directed the respondents for considering the candidature of petitioner in the category of OBC (NCL) in the counseling in light of judgment of Kavita Choudhary (supra). 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that during the relevant time, judgment of Kavita Choudhary (supra) was in force and in the light of directions given by the High Court on 01.05.2018 and on 05.02.2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2707/2018, the respondents should have obeyed the orders of the Court and considered the matter of the petitioner in OBC Non Creamy layer category. 6. Per contra, learned additional advocate General Mr. C.L. Saini submits that the order dated 17.04.2018 (annexure-9) is self explanatory in terms of Special Note Nos. IV, VII & IX of the advertisement dated 11.09.2017. It is absolutely clear that there will be no change in online application form qua the advertisement dated 11.09.2017, and if two forms are submitted, the last application form will be considered and if any mistake is there on the part of petitioner, he has to suffer and for any incorrect information, the application form can be rejected. 7. It is absolutely clear that there will be no change in online application form qua the advertisement dated 11.09.2017, and if two forms are submitted, the last application form will be considered and if any mistake is there on the part of petitioner, he has to suffer and for any incorrect information, the application form can be rejected. 7. Learned aaG has relied upon the judgment of the High Court in D.B Civil Special appeal (Writ) No.804/2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the judgment of Kavita Choudhary (supra) cannot be treated as a binding precedent and no one would be prejudiced if mistakes are corrected, the said contention cannot be accepted. after considering the judgment of Kavita Choudhary (supra), the Division Bench has held that it cannot be treated as a binding precedent and has dismissed similar kind of writ petitions relying upon the principles of judicial discipline. 8. Learned aaG submits that the present writ petition with the respective prayer should be dismissed. He submits that the category change as per annexure-10 is self explanatory and has only been done in the sports category and not otherwise. 9. We have gone through the record of the case, considered the submissions made by respective counsels, and also considered the judgments cited at Bar. 10. On consideration of advertisement dated 11.09.2017 and perusal of Special Note Nos. IV, VII & IX, it is absolutely clear that if any incorrect, incomplete and wrong information is submitted by the applicant before the date of submission, the same will be accepted and without any notice, the application form can either be rejected or will be considered accordingly. In the case in hand, prior to date of the application, no change in the category or revised form was filed, hence, on this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the case in hand, prior to date of the application, no change in the category or revised form was filed, hence, on this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. The reliance placed upon Kavita Choudhary (supra), is erroneous and misplaced as in terms of judgment of Division Bench dated 19.03.2021 in DBSaW No.804/2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi, it has been categorically held that Kavita Choudhary (supra) is not a binding precedent and was rendered in different facts and circumstances and contention of the petitioner is overruled as the Division Bench has categorically held that the contention that on mistake by the petitioner he should not be prejudiced, cannot be accepted. 12. Lastly, the point of discrimination and bias emphasized by way of annexure-10, that category change was performed in the matter of eight candidates, cannot rescue the petitioner as the same was in the category of sports and in accordance with the advertisement and entirely on different facts and circumstances. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed. all the pending applications also stand disposed of.