Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Akram Khan vs Raj. High Court Jodhpur & Anr on 21 July, 2016
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7410/2016
Akram Khan
Versus
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.
Date of Order :: 21.07.2016
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. M.A. Siddiqui and Mr. Sikandar Khan for the petitioner
Mr. Manoj Bhandari for the respondent
BY THE COURT :
The petitioner faced a process of selection conducted by the Rajasthan High Court for the purpose of appointment to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant and Clerk Grade-II. For the purpose, he filled in an application form showing himself as a person belonging to Other Backward Class (Creamylayer). After declaration of the result of the first step of the competitive test, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent with assertion that he is a person belonging to Other Backward Class (Non-creamylayer), as such, is entitled to be considered in the category of Other Backward Class (Male). Being failed to get any positive response, he preferred the instant petition for writ.
The argument advanced by learned counsel [2] appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that due to some bonafide error, the petitioner mentioned himself as a member of Other Backward Class (Creamylayer), but as a matter of fact, he is a person from Other Backward Class (Non-creamylayer). The error made by him deserves to be condoned and his candidature deserves to be considered in the category of Other Backward Class (Male).
The issue sought to be agitated by the petitioner in the instant petition for writ has been examined by a Division Bench of this court in a matter of similar nature, i.e. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3331/2014 (Sunil Bhanwariya Vs. Registrar, Examination Cell, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.) decided on 12.05.2014, holding as under :-
"Admittedly, the writ petitioner in his on-line application had mentioned his category as OBC/SBC creamy layer and his candidature was accordingly processed. He was registered as such and was allowed to participate in the preliminary examination. Per se therefore if he had been in the process construed as a general category candidate (OBC/SBC creamy layer), the respondents cannot be faulted with. Consequently, his non-inclusion in the list of candidates of OBC/SBC non-creamy layer category is unassailable in law. 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 request for alteration of any [3] 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."
The law laid down in the case of Sunil Bhanwariya (supra) was further reiterated in the case of Ajay Yadav Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5062/2014 decided on 21.05.2014.
In view of the judgments referred above, we do not find any merit in this petition for writ. The same, therefore, is dismissed.
[KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J. Pramod