Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1967 (RAJ)

Mustak Khan v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

2022-07-07

RAMESHWAR VYAS, S.S. SHINDE

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. In pursuance of the notification dated 05.01.2021 for competitive examination for direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judge, 2020 under the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010, the petitioner applied online application form in the General category. He appeared in the preliminary examination and secured 92 marks, whereas the cut off marks remained 96. He obtained required certificate of OBC Non-Creamy Layer (afterwards referred to as "OBC (NCL)") category on 02.03.2021 after last date i.e. 27.02.2021 for submitting online application form. However, the date was extended by another notification upto 31.03.2021. As per averment made in the writ petition, after issuing notification for extension of date, the petitioner was not provided opportunity to re-submit the online application form in the revised category. In the absence of any instruction regarding re-submission of the online application form the petitioner was deprived to get benefit of reservation of OBC (NCL) category. As per averment made in the writ petition, the petitioner submitted his online application form through E-mitra. The online application form of the petitioner was submitted under the General Category by the Computer Operator instead of submission under OBC (NCL) category in bonafide manner. The applicants like petitioner without instructions of the respondent authority could not submit their another application form during the extended period. If the respondents would have given such opportunity to re-submit new application form or edit their previous application form on getting due certificate of OBC (NCL) after first cut off date, then justice may be made towards aspirants like petitioner. As per the prayer made in the writ petition, the petitioner be declared qualified for main examination under the OBC (NCL) category and be allowed to participate in further selection process. 2. In response to the writ petition, the respondents filed reply. As per reply the petitioner never approached help line of the respondents for change of category. The category of the petitioner was also mentioned in the admit card. The petitioner did not make any endeavour to get the same corrected. The petitioner did not make any request for change of any category prior to declaration of the result, whereas the result of preliminary examination had already been declared on 16.09.2021. 3. The category of the petitioner was also mentioned in the admit card. The petitioner did not make any endeavour to get the same corrected. The petitioner did not make any request for change of any category prior to declaration of the result, whereas the result of preliminary examination had already been declared on 16.09.2021. 3. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on the judgment of this Court in Kavita Choudhary v. The Registrar (Examination), RHC, Jodhpur & Anr.: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1700/2017 submits that bona fide mistakes should be allowed to be corrected at latter stage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner belongs to OBC (NCL) category and on account of his bona fide mistake he applied in the General category. He submits that no opportunity was given by the respondents to correct the human error in recruitment process though last date for submitting the online form was extended. He further submits that the petitioner also obtained certificate in the respective category from the competent authority before extended cut off date for filing the online application form. He also submits that if the petitioner is allowed to appear in the main examination, as he obtained more marks than the cut off marks in the OBC (NCL) category, no prejudice would cause to anybody. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while relying on the judgment of this Court in Sunil Bhanwariya v. Registrar, Examination Cell, RHC, Jodhpur & Anr. submits that the petitioner having participated in the preliminary examination in the General category cannot raise this issue at belated stage after declaration of the result for the post of District Judge. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. As per admitted factual position of the present case, in pursuance of 85 vacancies advertised for the post of District Judge Cadre under Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 in various categories, the petitioner applied in the General category. It is not in dispute that admit cards for the preliminary examination were uploaded on the official website of Rajasthan High Court on 08.07.2021; the preliminary examination was conducted on 25.07.2021; the result for the same was declared on 16.09.2021 and the present writ petition has been filed only after declaration of the result of preliminary examination. It is not in dispute that admit cards for the preliminary examination were uploaded on the official website of Rajasthan High Court on 08.07.2021; the preliminary examination was conducted on 25.07.2021; the result for the same was declared on 16.09.2021 and the present writ petition has been filed only after declaration of the result of preliminary examination. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner failed to secure cut off marks in the General category. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, having participated in the examination and knowing that he has applied in the General category, he cannot be allowed to change his category from General to OBC (NCL) category. No prima facie case is made out by the petitioner. He did not file any proof to the effect that he made any endeavour to change his category in the application form from General to OBC (NCL). 9. In the case of Gawaraja Suthar v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16461/2021 the prayer seeking category change was rejected by this Court in the following terms:- "With respect to the petitioner's first grievance relating to demand for category change, we do not think that it is proper and justified as per the facts. The petitioner had appropriate opportunity to fill up the form and mark correction if there was any inaccuracy at that stage. The petitioner having participated on the basis of the form filled by her, cannot be permitted to make a change in the category at a belated stage. We may record that the shortlisting of the candidates after the initial screen test is category-wise. The petitioner who has awaited the declaration of the result for the screening test, at a belated stage, in any case, cannot be permitted to make the change." 10. There is no reason to differ from the view taken by this Court in Gawaraja Suthar's case (supra). 11. In the matter of Sunil Bhanwariya (supra) also this Court while disallowing the writ petition held as under:- "To reiterate, the advertisement had duly cautioned the candidates not only to be guardedly careful to ensure that correct and complete informations are furnished in their applications, it was clarified as well that after submission thereof, no respect for alteration of any entry would be permitted. This assumes great significance in view of the post and the service involved and also the academic level as well as the degree of alertness and responsibility expected of the candidates therefor. Significantly, the request by the writ-petitioner for alteration of his category was made after the declaration of the results in the preliminary examination and non-inclusion of his name in the list of OBC/SBC non-creamy layer category. He having himself specified his category to be OBC/SBC creamy layer, his grievance that though he had scored higher marks than the cut off marks of the OBC/SBC non-creamy layer category thus, in our comprehension, is of no significance." 12. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Kavita Choudhary (supra) is not helpful to the petitioner. In that matter without propounding any principles of law this Court allowed the relaxation. Whereas in the matter of Sunil Bhanwariya (supra) the issue has been considered, discussed and decided. We are in full agreement with the decision taken in the above matter of Sunil Bhanwariya (supra), as also in the matter of Gawaraja Suthar (supra). 13. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition the same is, therefore, dismissed. 14. The stay application also stands dismissed.