Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1193 (RAJ)

Anil Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-04-13

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to permit change in category of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Special Teacher Level I Non-TSP. 2. Submissions have been made that petitioner had filled up forms for recruitment to the post of General Teacher Level I Non- TSP and Special Teacher Level I Non-TSP simultaneously on 05.01.2022. 3. While in General Teacher Level I Non-TSP, petitioner indicated his category as OBC (Non Creamy Layer), which is the correct category, on account of mistake on part of the employee at the E-Mitra in the form pertaining to Special Teacher Level I Non- TSP, his category was filled up as OBC (Creamy). 4. When the cut-off was published by the respondents on 27.02.2022 (Annex.6) and the name of the petitioner did not appeared in the list of candidates called for document verification, the above mistake on part of the E-Mitra employee came to the light and petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 02.03.2022, which came to be rejected on 24.03.2022 inter-alia indicated that the candidates were given opportunity between 10.02.2022 to 16.02.2022 to make corrections, however, once the correction has not been made in the given window, the change, as desired was not permissible and consequently, rejected the representation. 5. Submissions have been made that the mistake on face of the material available on record is bona-fide, inasmuch as, the form for General Teacher Level I Non-TSP was filled up at 12:38:31 PM on 05.02.2022 and for Special Teacher Level I Non-TSP was filled up at 12:40:31 PM on 05.02.2022 and the fact that in the form pertaining to Special Teacher, the category was indicated as OBC (Creamy) was only on account of mistake and, therefore, the respondents be directed to correct the category of the petitioner and as the petitioner falls in the cut-off, his documents may be ordered to be verified. 6. Learned counsel appearing on caveat contested the submissions. It was submitted that though the claim made is that the category was filled up by mistake, in the advertisement it was specifically indicated that in case of mistake in the application form, the same can be corrected within the window provided and after the period for correction is over, no correction would be permitted in future. 7. It was submitted that though the claim made is that the category was filled up by mistake, in the advertisement it was specifically indicated that in case of mistake in the application form, the same can be corrected within the window provided and after the period for correction is over, no correction would be permitted in future. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not corrected the purported mistake within the window provided and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this regard. 8. Reliance has been placed on Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yogita Yaduvanshi: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.804/2020, decided on 19.03.2021 at Jaipur Bench, Sonal Tyagi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7840/2019, decided on 12.07.2019, Laxmi Lata Bamaniya v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3720/2022, decided on 21.03.2022. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The facts as noticed, hereinbefore, are undisputed, wherein, the petitioner may be on account of mistake committed, has filled up his category as OBC (Creamy) in the recruitment for Special Teacher (Level I) (Non-TSP). However, despite grant of window by the respondents for making requisite corrections, the petitioner, may be on account of unawareness about the mistake, did not utilize the window provided by the respondents and the purported mistake remained as it is. 11. This Court after referring to the orders in the case of Yogita Yaduvanshi (supra) & Sonal Tyagi (supra) and taking into consideration the judgment in the case of Kavita Choudhary v. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017, decided on 01.11.2017 in the case of Laxmi Lata Bamaniya (supra) inter-alia came to the following conclusion:- "This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to change her category from Special Teacher (Level I) (TSP) to General Teacher (TSP). Learned counsel for the respondents with reference to the judgments in the case of Sonal Tyagi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7840/2019, decided on 12.07.2019 and RPSC v. Yogita Yaduvanshi : DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 804/2020, decided on 19.03.2021, made submissions that change of the said nature is not permissible. Learned counsel for the respondents with reference to the judgments in the case of Sonal Tyagi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7840/2019, decided on 12.07.2019 and RPSC v. Yogita Yaduvanshi : DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 804/2020, decided on 19.03.2021, made submissions that change of the said nature is not permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment in the case of Kavita Choudhary v. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1700/2017, decided on 01.11.2017. In the case of Sonal Tyagi (supra), the Division Bench after considering the judgment in the case of Kavita Choudhary (supra), came to the conclusion that the said judgment cannot be treated as a binding precedent, as the same was in ignorance of previous judgments of Coordinate Benches of equal strength. The similar view was expressed by another Division Bench in the case of Yogita Yaduvanshi (supra). In view of the above fact situation, wherein, judgments in the cases of Sonal Tyagi and Yogita Yaduvanshi have laid down that change of category cannot be permitted, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed." 12. Following the order in the case of Laxmi Lata Bamaniya (supra), the present petition is also dismissed.