Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1469 (RAJ)

Silochana v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-02

ARUN BHANSALI

body2023
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to change the marital status of the petitioner as 'widow' instead of 'married woman' and consider the candidature of the petitioner in the category of widow for the post of Primary School Teacher (Level-1) for Direct Recruitment-2022. 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the husband of the petitioner had died on 08.10.2009. Whereafter the petitioner had applied for REET-2021, wherein she indicate her status as OBC Widow and again in REET 2022, she indicated her status as widow. Pursuant to advertisement dated 16.11.2022 (Annex.4) for Primary School Teacher (Level-1), the petitioner applied, however, due to inadvertence in the online application form (Annex.5), she indicated her marital status as married; based on which she was issued provisional E-admit Card and the mark-sheet was issued to the petitioner, wherein her status was shown as 'married'. Thereafter, when the result was declared on 26.05.2023 (Annex.7) and despite petitioner obtaining far higher marks than the cutoff of OBC widow and her roll number did not appear in the list of successful candidates, the petitioner became aware of the mistake committed and approached the respondent Board seeking correction in the category. However, as the respondents refused to change the category, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the mistake committed by the petitioner while filing up the online application form is apparent as her husband had died way back in the year 2009 and all along she had claimed her status as a widow. It was also only when the result was declared on 26.05.2023 (Annex.7) that the petitioner became aware of the mistake committed and immediately approached the respondents seeking correction in the category, however, the same has wrongly been refused. 4. Submissions have been made that the petitioner has obtained far higher marks meant for her category and, therefore, the rejection of her candidature by treating her married is not justified. Reliance has been placed on Suman Inaniyan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4465/2020 decided on 25.11.2020. 5. 4. Submissions have been made that the petitioner has obtained far higher marks meant for her category and, therefore, the rejection of her candidature by treating her married is not justified. Reliance has been placed on Suman Inaniyan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4465/2020 decided on 25.11.2020. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Board made submissions that in the advertisement dated 16.12.2022 itself, the indications were made and opportunity was provided to the candidates to make the requisite corrections in the application form, however, as the petitioner failed to correct the mistake committed in the application form, in view of specific stipulation made in the advertisement, denying any correction in the category etc., the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It was also submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in Mamita Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9091/2020 decided on 09.10.2020 denied such a change by relying on the Division Bench judgment in Piyush Kaviya and Ors. v. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.198/2018 and other connected matters, decided on 10.04.2018 and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. It was further submitted that as the judgment in the case of Suman Inaniyan (supra) does not take into consideration the binding Division Bench judgment in the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra), the same does not lay down correct law and, as such the petitioner cannot rely on the said judgment. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner, on account of mistake committed during filling up the online application form (Annex.5) indicated her marital status as married though her husband had expired way back on 08.10.2009. It is also not in dispute that despite the fact that the application form was filled up on 17.01.2023, for all this period till declaration of the result on 26.05.2023 (Annex.7), the petitioner didn't care to rectify the mistake despite specific stipulation in the advertisement providing window for such correction and prohibiting corrections after the period of said window was over, on the purported ground that she was unaware of the mistake committed. 8. The Division Bench in the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra) inter-alia held as under: "29. 8. The Division Bench in the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra) inter-alia held as under: "29. It needs to be highlighted that seeking public employment the number of applicants swell into thousands for every appointment offered. The cumbersome process of processing the applications manually and at each stage of the selection process manual intervention being time consuming, aid of technology is being taken. On-line applications are being received. Opportunities to correct mistakes in the on-line application forms are provided by opening a window period. When the window period closes, the forms, applications etc. as amended are processed. The computer generates the admit cards. The results of the examination are fed in the computer for various categories of posts and in the instant case, the number being 30, select list based on merits and categories are generated by the computer. The candidates need to be vigilant and specially when, as in the instant advertisement, they were cautioned time and again to check their particulars and a window period within which corrections could be made was made available to the candidates. 30. Whilst it may be true that every endeavour should be made to induct meritorious candidates but at the same time administrative inconvenience caused by permitting applicants to correct errors committed by them has to be kept in mind. It serves public interest that appointments to civil posts are made as early as possible. 31. Thus, the conflict between merit and public interest subserved by timely filling up of public posts has to be balanced. The balance is stuck in the instant case by giving a window period to the candidates to correct the on-line application forms. The balance was stuck by prohibiting any application to be submitted after last date notified. 32. The writ petitioners were negligent. They never disclosed in the on-line application forms submitted that they were non-gazetted Government employees. Thus, it was too late in the day for them to seek change in the category in which they had applied after the admit cards were issued by informing the Commission that they were non-gazetted Government employees." 9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mamita Choudhary (supra) following the Division Bench judgment in Piyush Kavia, in a case where the petitioner sought to change the category from General to OBC widow inter-alia dismissed the writ petition. 10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mamita Choudhary (supra) following the Division Bench judgment in Piyush Kavia, in a case where the petitioner sought to change the category from General to OBC widow inter-alia dismissed the writ petition. 10. In view thereof, the issue raised in the present writ petition seeking change of category after declaration of the result is squarely covered by law laid down in the case of Piyush Kavia (supra) and followed in the case of Mamita Choudhary (supra). 11. Insofar as judgment in Suman Inaniyan (supra) is concerned, apparently the Division Bench judgment in the case of Piyush Kavia (supra) was not cited and, therefore, the said judgment is not a valid precedent, to be followed by this Court. 12. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has no substance, the same is therefore, dismissed.