JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 16/3/2022 (Annex. P/11), whereby, her representation has been rejected by the respondent RPSC. 2. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in the subject Agriculture. She was issued admit card and she appeared in the written examination. The result was declared on 28/7/2020, wherein, candidates twice the number of vacant posts were called for document verification. The petitioner did not fall in the cut off declared on 28/7/2020. It appears from the representation made by the petitioner to the RPSC (Annex. P/6) that on account of non-selection in the list dated 28/7/2020, the petitioner turned aloof towards the said recruitment and remained unaware about every information/notice from the RPSC. 3. The RPSC issued a press note dated 15/1/2021 (Annex. P/3) requiring all the candidates having Post Graduation in Agriculture and B.Ed. to appear for counselling on 15/2/2021 and 16/2/2021 and information in this regard was sought from the candidates by way of SMS, which was sent to the petitioner as well, however, the petitioner did not respond to the said press note dated 15/1/2021. Another press note was issued by the RPSC on 8/2/2021 (Annex. P/4) again calling on the candidates to appear for counselling on 15/2/2021 and 16/2/2021. Again a press note dated 24/2/2021 was issued by the RPSC requiring the candidates, who did not appear in the counselling on 15/2/2021 and 16/2/2021 to appear for counselling on 2/3/2021. Whereafter, a last chance was given by way of press note dated 17/3/2021 requiring the candidates, who remained absent on 2/3/2021, to appear for counselling on 22/3/2021. Whereafter, apparently, those who did not appear for counselling pursuant to the press note dated 15/1/2021 were declared ineligible by the RPSC. 4. The petitioner made a representation on 13/12/2021 i.e. after about 08 months from the last date of appearing for counselling i.e. 22/3/2021 requiring the RPSC to verify her documents inter alia claiming that she was suffering from Covid and Black Fungus infection. When the RPSC did not respond, the petitioner filed SBCWP No. 388/2022, which came to be decided on 12/1/2022 by a coordinate bench of this Court requiring the respondents to decide the representation made by the petitioner by way of a speaking order. 5. The petitioner made representation dated 18/1/2022 (Annex. P/8) and 10/2/2022 (Annex. When the RPSC did not respond, the petitioner filed SBCWP No. 388/2022, which came to be decided on 12/1/2022 by a coordinate bench of this Court requiring the respondents to decide the representation made by the petitioner by way of a speaking order. 5. The petitioner made representation dated 18/1/2022 (Annex. P/8) and 10/2/2022 (Annex. P/9) to the respondents and a reminder dated 28/2/2022 (Annex. P/10). The representations came to be decided by the impugned order dated 16/3/2022 (Annex. P/11) inter alia indicating the entire sequence of events as noticed hereinbefore and ultimately came to the following conclusion: vr% mDrkuqlkj gLrxr izdj.k esa ;kfpdkFkhZ&:fp ;kno dks dkmalfyax o nLrkost lR;kiu ds fy, izsl foKfIr] izsl uksV ,oa ,l0,e0,l ds ek/;e ls de ls de 03 ckj volj miyC/k djk;s x, gSA ;kfpdkFkhZ }kjk vius vH;kosnu esa vafdr rF;ksa ds leFkZu esa dksjksuk o CySd Qaxl ls ihfM+r gksus ckcr~ dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA vk;ksx }kjk p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vfHkLRkkouk dh eq[; lwph foHkkx dks fnukad 03-08- 2021 dks gh izsf"kr dh tk pqdh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;kph dks okafNr vuqrks"k fn;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that rejection of the petitioner's candidature by the RPSC is not justified in the circumstances, wherein, the petitioner was suffering from Corona and Black Fungus, which resulted in petitioner's inability to appear for counselling despite the press notes issued by the respondents from time to time and looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the respondents should have permitted the petitioner to undergo counselling and in case she falls within the cut off, to accord her appointment. 7. Submissions were also made that though indications have been made that the petitioner did not produce any material to indicate her suffering from Corona and Black Fungus, the documents filed as part of Annex. P/6 clearly reflect that the petitioner was suffering from said ailment and had a valid reason for not appearing in the counselling and, therefore, the action of the respondents in denying counselling to the petitioner cannot be justified. 8. Learned counsel for the RPSC made submissions that the plea raised by the petitioner is baseless. P/6 clearly reflect that the petitioner was suffering from said ailment and had a valid reason for not appearing in the counselling and, therefore, the action of the respondents in denying counselling to the petitioner cannot be justified. 8. Learned counsel for the RPSC made submissions that the plea raised by the petitioner is baseless. The RPSC has passed a detailed exhaustive order dealing with all the aspects raised by the petitioner and has come to the conclusion that on failure of the petitioner to respond to repeated counselling notices including the SMS sent to her, her candidature has been rightly rejected. 9. Further submissions have been made that the plea regarding her ailment also was not substantiated before RPSC and as such the representation has been rightly rejected. The petitioner on account of her own conduct and the fact that the recruitment cannot be kept hanging for an indefinite period waiting for the candidates, who do not care for the various communications issued by the RPSC, cannot be considered now and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. A bare look at the impugned order dated 16/3/2022 (Annex. P/11) rejecting the representation of the petitioner reveals that the RPSC has thoroughly indicated the lengthy procedure adopted by it to conclude the recruitment by affording numerous opportunities to the candidates to appear for counselling pursuant to the declaration of result by them. A specific indication has been made in the order that the petitioner was sent a SMS on 15/1/2021 requiring her to send the requisite information online, however, the petitioner failed to send the information. 12. When learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of submissions, was confronted with the aspect of sending a SMS to the petitioner, he denied having received one. However, when he was called upon, based on the specific indication made in the order dated 16/3/2022 (Annex. P/11) in this regard, to show if the petitioner in her petition has denied the said aspect, it was submitted that the petitioner has not denied having received a SMS as indicated in the order impugned, as such the denial made by the learned counsel regarding receipt of SMS cannot be accepted. 13. Besides the above, the petitioner in her first representation dated 13/12/2021 (Annex. 13. Besides the above, the petitioner in her first representation dated 13/12/2021 (Annex. P/6) has herself clearly indicated that as her roll number did not appear in the first list dated 28/7/2020, she turned aloof towards the said recruitment and remained unaware of every information sent by the RPSC. The relevant portion reads as under: mijksDr fo"k; esa fouze vuqjks/k gS fd izkFkhZ;k izk/;kid Ldwy f'k{kk izfr;ksxh ijh{kk 2018&19 esa lfEefyr gqbZ FkhA fnukad 28-07-2020 dh fopkfjr lwph esa d`f"k fo"k; ls lacaf/kr 660 p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa esa esjk p;u u gksus ds dkj.k eSaus bl vksj /;ku nsuk cUn dj fn;k vkSj vk;ksx ls lacaf/kr gj lwpuk ls eSa vufHkK jghA 14. So far as the plea raised by the petitioner about her suffering from Corona and Black Fungus is concerned, as noticed hereinbefore, the last date for appearing for counselling, after three different notices were issued, was 22/3/2021, however, from the material produced by the petitioner at page 28, 29 & 30 of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner was tested positive for Covid-19 on 24/4/2021 and was prescribed medication by Ophthalmologist on 17/5/2021 for Black Fungus. As, such, it apparent that till 22/3/2021 i.e. the last date for counselling, the petitioner was not suffering from the ailment as claimed by her and, therefore, the plea raised based on the ailment in relation to her non-appearance in the counselling cannot be accepted. 15. In view of the above, as it is apparent that the respondent RPSC gave repeated opportunities to the candidates to appear for counselling in relation to the recruitment and the petitioner, on account of her own attitude towards the recruitment, chose not to respond to the various information in this regard including personal SMS sent to her, is not entitled to any relief. The dismissal of the representation by the RPSC cannot be faulted on any count. 16. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.