Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1539 (RAJ)

Nayana Patidar v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-12

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the rejection of her representation by the respondents to take into consideration her graduation qualification for the purpose of eligibility for the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level-I) pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.12.2021 (Annex. 1). 2. It is inter alia indicated that the advertisement indicated the requisite eligibility criteria, wherein, based on Senior Secondary, the requirement was at least 50% marks, however, for graduates, no minimum percentage was indicated. 3. The petitioner filled up her application form (Annex. 4) and indicated her qualifications, wherein, she indicated only Secondary, Senior Secondary, Bachelor of Elementary Education and REET 2021 marks and on account of inadvertence could not indicate her graduation marks, though, she has graduation to her credit as Bachelor of Science as is reflected from the degree produced as Annex. 2. 4. The petitioner before the declaration of the result, had approached this Court by filing SBCWP No. 3807/2022, which came to be disposed of on 16.3.2022, whereby, the petitioner was permitted to make a representation to the competent authority and it was expected of the competent authority to decide the same appropriately. 5. The competent authority i.e. Additional Director (Administration), Elementary Education, Rajasthan by order dated 24.3.2022 (Annex. 9), has rejected the representation made by the petitioner inter alia indicating that time was granted for amendment in the application form till 16.2.2022, no amendment was sought by the petitioner, therefore, now she was not entitled for any amendment in the application and as the petitioner has obtained less than 50% marks i.e. 49.2% marks in the Senior Secondary, she was ineligible. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that action of the respondents in rejecting the prayer made to include the graduation of the petitioner for the purpose of eligibility, is not justified, inasmuch as, it was by mere inadvertence that the petitioner did not indicate the said aspect in the application form. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that action of the respondents in rejecting the prayer made to include the graduation of the petitioner for the purpose of eligibility, is not justified, inasmuch as, it was by mere inadvertence that the petitioner did not indicate the said aspect in the application form. 7. Further submissions have been made that by permitting the said amendment, except for making the petitioner eligible, nothing else is getting changed, inasmuch as, the petitioner based on her marks in REET, which is the criteria for according the appointment is falling in merit and on account of her eligibility based on graduation, none else would be disturbed and, therefore, the respondents be directed to take into consideration the graduation degree of the petitioner for the purpose of eligibility. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that admittedly, the petitioner did not avail the benefit of the window provided by the respondents for making amendments in the application form, wherein, the petitioner, for the reasons best known to her, did not indicate her graduation. Based on the indications made in the application form, as the petitioner had obtained marks less than 50% in Senior Secondary, she is ineligible, her candidature has been rightly rejected. 9. Further submissions have been made that the plea now sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding rejection of her representation, is without any basis, inasmuch as, the respondents have passed the order in terms of the advertisement, wherein, the amendment, after the window, has been clearly prohibited and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 10. However, on a query made, learned AAG indicated that as the merit is prepared based on the marks obtained in REET, in case, the petitioner is eligible, the same would not disturb the merit as such. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. The facts are not in dispute, wherein, the petitioner despite being in possession of graduation in Science, did not/could not indicate the same in her application form for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level-I) and indicated her Senior Secondary marks. 13. In terms of the advertisement, as the petitioner had marks less than 50% in her Senior Secondary, she was clearly ineligible. III (Level-I) and indicated her Senior Secondary marks. 13. In terms of the advertisement, as the petitioner had marks less than 50% in her Senior Secondary, she was clearly ineligible. The petitioner on becoming aware of the said action/inaction on her part, filed petition before this Court, wherein, prayer was made that the petitioner wanted to approach the respondents by way of representation and permission was granted and the respondents were directed to decide the same appropriately. 14. The respondents apparently by quoting the letter of the advertisement, wherein, after the window regarding amendment in the application, was over, no amendments were directed to be permitted, have rejected the representation made by the petitioner. 15. Though the rejection of the representation by the respondents by relying on the indications made in the advertisement may be justified, however, looking to the overall spirit, wherein, the provision apparently has been incorporated to put a quietus to disputes sought to be raised by the candidates once the cut-off etc. are declared, seeking change in their categories etc., which result in changing of the merit and the entire result, has been apparently lost sight of in the present case. 16. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and indicated by learned AAG, in case, the graduation of the petitioner was taken into consideration, while deciding the representation in favour of the petitioner, the same would not have changed the merit status of the petitioner/merit list. 17. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner was in possession of a degree issued on 28.9.2018 and apparently on account of inadvertence/mistake, she did not indicate the same in her application form and indicated the marks, which have made her ineligible for the post, for which inadvertence if she is deprived of her eligibility, when the same is not affecting anyone, would not be appropriate. 18. In view of the overall fact situation, wherein, the petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion before the merit list was issued by the respondents and the representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 24.3.2022 i.e. also before the merit list was issued by the respondents, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the same is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to take into consideration the graduation degree of the petitioner for the purpose of her eligibility pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.12.2021 and, in case, based on the said graduation, she is found eligible, her name may be included in the merit list as per her merit.