Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 923 (RAJ)

Priyanka Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-03-21

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the non-inclusion of her name in the provisional merit list for appointment to the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade pursuant to the advertisement dated 17/6/2021 in EWS category. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that the petitioner applied in the category of EWS, she was in possession of requisite certificates dated 21/11/2019 & 2/9/2021, which certificates were produced by the petitioner during the course of document verification along with an affidavit dated 25/10/2021, however, the name of the petitioner did not appear in the provisional merit list, though the marks obtained by the petitioner are higher than the cut off. The petitioner has made a representation (Annex. 13), however, the same was not considered. 3. Submissions have been made that the guidelines issued by the State on 9/9/2015 in relation to the OBC (NCL) certificate would be application to the EWS cases also and as the petitioner has produced an affidavit dated 18/10/2021, her case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Kailash Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2505/2022 decided on 23/2/2022 and, therefore, the petition be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that in terms of condition No. 9.2 of the advertisement, the certificate issued after the last date of filing application i.e. 23/7/2021 was not valid and as the certificate produced by the petitioner was after the cut off date, she was not entitled for the benefit as EWS category candidate. 5. Learned counsel for the recruiting agency emphasized that the certificate dated 21/11/2019 also cannot be taken into consideration as the same was not the latest certificate and pertain to the Financial Year 2019-20 and, therefore, she has not been conferred the benefit of EWS candidate. 6. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the affidavit dated 18/10/2021 filed as part of Annex. 10 of the writ petition. By order dated 14/3/2022, time was granted to the respondents to complete their instructions pertaining to the filing of said affidavit. 7. Today, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 - recruiting agency made a specific statement that while affidavit at page 54 of Annex. 10 was available, the so called affidavit dated 18/10/2021 at page 55 (part of Annex. By order dated 14/3/2022, time was granted to the respondents to complete their instructions pertaining to the filing of said affidavit. 7. Today, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 - recruiting agency made a specific statement that while affidavit at page 54 of Annex. 10 was available, the so called affidavit dated 18/10/2021 at page 55 (part of Annex. 10) was not available on record as the same has not been filed by the petitioner. 8. When learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the said aspect, it was insisted that the affidavit was produced before the respondents and based on the said affidavit, the petitioner is eligible in view of the judgment in the case of Kailash Kumar (supra). 9. A perusal of the affidavit dated 18/10/2021 (page 55 to 57 of the paper book) clearly reveals that the same is a made up document. The petitioner is a resident of Virat Nagar, Madanganj - Kishangarh, Tehsil - Kishangarh, District Ajmer and the affidavit is purportedly sworn on 18/10/2021 at Jodhpur and another affidavit filed at page 54 has been sworn at Kishangarh on 25/10/2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to what prompted the petitioner to be at Jodhpur on 18/10/2021 when her document verification was to take place on 26/10/2021. If the petitioner had sworn the affidavit on 18/10/2021 what was the occasion for again swearing another affidavit dated 25/10/2021. Even in the representation (Annex. 13), wrongly dated 26/10/2022, which is said to have been filed by the petitioner on the date of document verification, the only reference was made to the affidavit dated 25/10/2021 and there is no reference to the purported affidavit dated 18/10/2021. 10. Besides the above, it would be seen that the affidavit dated 18/10/2021 has been sworn on a stamp of Rs. 50/- which was issued in March, 2019, what was the occasion for using the stamp issued in the month of March, 2019 in October, 2021 is also not known. 11. Apparently, after the judgment in the case of Kailash Kumar (supra), for the purpose of bringing the case of the petitioner within the parameters laid down in the said case, the petitioner has got prepared the above back dated affidavit. 12. 11. Apparently, after the judgment in the case of Kailash Kumar (supra), for the purpose of bringing the case of the petitioner within the parameters laid down in the said case, the petitioner has got prepared the above back dated affidavit. 12. In view thereof, the plea raised regarding filing of the affidavit dated 18/10/2021 by the petitioner is not only incorrect but on its face false and it is apparent that the petitioner has indulged in fabricating evidence. 13. In view of the above fact situation, as the purported affidavit dated 18/10/2021 was not filed by the petitioner, the judgment in the case of Kailash Kumar (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case. 14. In view of the above, action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner as EWS category candidate cannot be faulted on any count. 15. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.