ORDER : I.A.No.04/2023: For the reasons stated, the application seeking leave to place the letter dated 27.03.2023 on record, is allowed. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6529/2020: 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised a grievance that appointments have been given to persons less meritorious than him, but the same has been denied to him. 2. For the purpose of vying for the post of Junior Accountant in furtherance of recruitment notification dated 16.04.2015, the petitioner submitted his application form. 3. In the said application form, he indicated his two addresses; against head ‘present postal address’: Ambica Bhawan Front of Patrica Office, Old Bus Stand Jalore (Raj.) and against ‘permanent home address’: 913, Society Nagar, Pali. 4. The petitioner appeared in the selection process and when the result was declared (17.05.2018), he downloaded the result/mark-sheet and came to know that he has secured merit position No.2971. According to petitioner, on inquiry made by him the RPSC stated that he will be duly informed about further process. 5. When the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents only to learn that appointments have been given long back and his candidature has been cancelled as he did not turn up for document verification. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner having secured good merit position was waiting for document verification and posting and when he learnt that appointment orders have already been issued to many other candidates., he contacted the respondent-RPSC. 7. He asserted that the petitioner did not receive any intimation regarding the date of document verification, though he had given his address in the application form. Petitioner’s right to get appointment has been negated by the respondents conduct, argued Mr. Sankhla. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents had sent the intimation to the petitioner at his Pali address though he had clearly indicated that he has been residing in Jalore for the last five years and that is, his postal address. 9. According to the petitioner, as the respondents had sent the intimation about the date of document verification at a wrong address, he could not appear in such process. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that because of the respondents’ fault, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 10. 9. According to the petitioner, as the respondents had sent the intimation about the date of document verification at a wrong address, he could not appear in such process. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that because of the respondents’ fault, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 10. As against this, the State has come with a specific reply that no candidate was informed by post about the date of document verification and the intimation regarding eligible candidates called for document verification was given by publishing the same on the website of the Treasury & Accounts Department. 11. Inviting Court’s attention towards para No.4 of the reply, learned counsel for the respondents argued that as the petitioner has come with wrong assertion of facts, the petition be dismissed on this count alone. 12. Mr. Nishant Bapna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State invited Court’s attention towards the documents, which the petitioner has produced, more particularly photocopies of the dispatch register and postal receipt (page No.75 and 76), and submitted that the postal receipt is of 31.01.2019, in which what was sent, was the rejection of communication dated 29.01.2019, whereby petitioner’s candidature was rejected. He submitted that merely because the letter was sent at petitioner’s Pali address, the petitioner cannot claim that the notice of appearing in the document verification was sent and that too at petitioner’s Pali address to contend that he was not informed or the intimation was not proper. 13. Mr. Sankhla, learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that for whatever reasons, if the petitioner has not appeared in the document verification, the Court should grant him indulgence and direct the respondents to carry out petitioner’s document verification given that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following three order/judgments:- (i) Rajiya Begam Habshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors in SBCWP No.12515/2017 (ii) Vana Ram Meghwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SBCWP No.13441/2017 (iii) Gunjan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SBCWP No.12826/2017 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. A perusal of ground ‘B’ mentioned in the memo of the petition clearly indicates that the petitioner has come up with an assertion that the respondents had wrongly sent the notice for document verification at petitioner’s Pali address. 17. in SBCWP No.12826/2017 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. A perusal of ground ‘B’ mentioned in the memo of the petition clearly indicates that the petitioner has come up with an assertion that the respondents had wrongly sent the notice for document verification at petitioner’s Pali address. 17. In the face of the corresponding reply given by the respondents that no intimation by post was given to individual candidates and the same was published on website, no fault can be found with the respondents. The petitioner, who is serving as Senior Assistant in the State Government cannot be expected to be negligent about his career and ignorant of the notice/information published by the State on the website. 18. The petitioner having failed to take note of the notice published by the Department has come with a wrong assertion of fact that the respondents have informed him at a wrong address whereas no intimation about the date of document verification was ever sent by the respondents by post. 19. What has been placed by the petitioner on record, is the receipt dated 31.01.2019, whereby the letter of rejection of petitioner’s candidature was sent by the respondents. 20. The photocopy of the Register, which the petitioner has placed at page No.75 clearly shows the entries of 29.01.2019 and if all the four entries of such date are examined, they clearly suggest that they relate to orders that have been sent to all the candidates, who have been selected after document verification. 21. Such entry, which has been made on 29.01.2019 has been obviously made after publication of the list of rejected candidates which includes the letter dated 29.01.2019, which has been sent to the petitioner intimating rejection of his candidature. 22. On the basis of such documents at page No.75 and 76, the petitioner cannot claim that the respondents have intimated each candidate about the date and time of document verification by post. 23. This Court is not much convinced with Mr. Sankhla’s submission that because the posts are still lying vacant, the petitioner be given appointment. Merely because the posts are lying vacant, the petitioner who has been negligent cannot be given indulgence as prayed. 24. The Court has considered the judgments/orders cited by Mr. Sankhla (noticed in para No.11 above). 25. 23. This Court is not much convinced with Mr. Sankhla’s submission that because the posts are still lying vacant, the petitioner be given appointment. Merely because the posts are lying vacant, the petitioner who has been negligent cannot be given indulgence as prayed. 24. The Court has considered the judgments/orders cited by Mr. Sankhla (noticed in para No.11 above). 25. The case of Rajiya Begam (supra), cannot be treated to be a precedent, as the same is an interim order passed in peculiar facts of the said case. 26. The second judgment in the case of Vana Ram (supra), has been passed following the judgment in the case of Brijesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SBCWP No.18992/2017 dated 08.11.2017, passed at Jaipur Bench in which the Court had granted indulgence to the candidates appearing in Teacher Recruitment 2013, which were held by different Zila Parishads. Considering that the petitioners before the Court were the candidates whose names were first time included in the second revised list, which came to be issued in October, 2017. The Court found that because of the publication of the notice in the newspaper, many candidates could not appear for document verification. 27. Having regard to fact that the candidates could not be expected to keep eye on the newspaper for 4 years and so also the fact that many candidates had left behind, the High Court granted indulgence in the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra) and following the same, in the case of Vana Ram Meghwal (supra), the Court has directed the respondents to consider petitioner’s candidature. 28. The third judgment in the case of Gunjan Sharma (supra), which has been relied upon by Mr. Sankhla is nothing but an order passed in line with Vana Ram’s judgment, following the judgment passed in the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra). 29. The above cited judgments do not help the petitioner’s case as the first order is an interim order and the second and third judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as, in the petitioner’s case, the recruitment and document verification was not at different places, whereas in the case of Teacher Recruitment 2013, due to candidates applying at multiple places and due to large number of candidates, publication in newspaper was not considered proper intimation to the candidates. 30. 30. That apart, a perusal of para No.3 of judgment in the case of Vana Ram (supra) shows that rights of the candidates were protected by way of an interim order and seats were ordered to be kept vacant in their respective categories, whereas no interim order was passed in petitioner’s favour. As informed by the State, recruitment is over and the State has sent the vacancy position for initiation of fresh recruitment process. 31. It is rather surprising that after declaration of the reshuffled result by the RPSC on 17.05.2018, the petitioner did not care to follow up with the status of further process of the recruitment. He has neither checked the website of respondent No.2 nor has he made any inquiry. He has got up from his hibernation only in July, 2020. 32. The petitioner has categorically stated in para No.3 of the memo of the writ petition that after declaration of result on 17.05.2018, he had obtained it from the official website of the RPSC. One wonders that if the petitioner came to know about the reshuffled result and has himself downloaded the same from website of RPSC, how could he remain so indolent? 33. The petitioner himself is responsible for his failure to get appointment. 34. As a result of discussion foregoing, this Court is firmly of the view that the petitioner has been negligent in not keeping track of the date of document verification and he has wrongly found fault in the respondents’ action. 35. The present writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 36. The stay petition also stands disposed of.