Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1875 (RAJ)

Niyati Khoraniya Daughter v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-06-28

INDERJEET SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- "Accordingly it is prayed that your Honour may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition by: (i) passing an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner to appear in the ensuing examination of Phase II (Final) of Direct Joint Recruitment of Stenographers-2018 under the O.B.C. Female Divorcee category to be held by RSSB in near future. (ii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 04.07.2018 issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred as 'Board'), the petitioner applied for the post of Stenographer under the category of OBC Female Non-Creamy layer and the last date for submitting the application form was 10.08.2018. However, after issuance of the advertisement, considering the difficulties of number of candidates with regard to certain suitable amendment/corrections including change of category, a press note dated 24.03.2021 was issued by the Board granting opportunity to the candidates to make necessary corrections in the application form as clarified in the press note dated 24.03.2021 from 01.04.2021 to 10.04.2021. Thereafter, the first phase of examination was conducted and its result was declared by the Board on 16.07.2021. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for change of her category from OBC Female to OBC Female Divorcee category on 23.10.2021 which is much even after the declaration of result. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the last date of submitting the application form i.e. 10.08.2018 the status of the petitioner was married, as such she applied under the category of OBC Female (non-creamy layer) and so far as her status of divorcee is concerned, that came into effect from 29.01.2021 which is the date when the decree of divorce was passed by the competent court of jurisdiction. Counsel further submits that the petitioner failed to change her category between 01.04.2021 to 10.04.2021 due to the reason that she was not aware about the same and came to know only on 10.04.2021 (last date for applying for correction) on which day she immediately rushed to the office of E-Mitra but due to the poor internet connectivity and server being down, she could not succeed in applying for correction in her category for which she may not be held to be at fault. Counsel further submits that vide interim order dated 14.09.2021, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the second phase of examination for Stenographer-2018 and lastly prayed that the petitioner is a divorcee lady, respondent be directed to treat and declare her result in the category of OBC Divorcee. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board submitted that the petitioner failed to change or make correction in the application form in her category between 01.04.2021 to 10.04.2021 despite opportunity being granted by the Board vide Press Note dated 24.03.2021 for necessary corrections in the application form. Counsel further submits that it was specifically mentioned in the Press Note dated 24.03.2021 that no further opportunity shall be granted for change of category or make corrections in the application form. Counsel further submits that the petitioner applied for change of her category even after declaration of result of first phase of examination on 23.10.2021 which cannot be permitted at such belated stage as the third party rights were already created by that time. Counsel further submits that exactly the same point/controversy has been examined and decided by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Monika Prajapat v. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.236/2022) vide order dated 22.04.2022 which reads as under :- "This Special appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby her writ petition has been dismissed. The case of the appellant is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent, she has applied for the post of 'Patwari', however, due to inadvertence of e-mitra employee, her category has been mentioned as General instead of OBC (NCL). After receiving admit card, the appellant approached the respondent for change of her category, but the same was not permitted. After receiving admit card, the appellant approached the respondent for change of her category, but the same was not permitted. After declaration of result of the examination, the appellant again approached the respondent for the change of her category, but the same was again not permitted, then, the appellant has filed writ petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge while relying on a Division Bench's judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Piyush Kaviya v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in 2018 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 767. It is an admitted case that the appellant has not approached the respondent for change of her category within the 7 days window provided by the respondent. The appellant has also failed to convince the learned Single Judge that after receiving of the admit card, she has approached the respondent for the change of her category. The appellant has approached the respondent for change of her category after declaration of the result. The learned Single Judge while relying on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Piyush Kaviya's case (supra) has dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench in Piyush Kaviya's case (supra) has categorically held that a candidate has to apply within the window provided for the change of category and after the expiry of time, no further opportunity can be granted to any candidate to change the category. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the material available on record, we do not find any merit in the instant special appeal and the same is dismissed as such. Stay petition is also disposed of." 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner failed to change her category despite sufficient opportunity being granted by the Board vide their Press Note dated 24.03.2021; secondly, the petitioner approached the Board even after declaration of result of the first phase of examination and by that time third party rights were already created and lastly, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Monika Prajapat (supra), no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. 8. 7. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. 8. All the pending applications stand disposed of.