Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajasthan State Pollution Contr vs Savita on 26 July, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO. 1234/2011 IN S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12391/2010 RAJASTHAN STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, JAIPUR VS. SAVITA. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 26.07.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I HON'BLE MISS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Mr. R.D. Rastogi with Mr. N.S. Chouhan, for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Gaur, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashwini Jaiman and Mr. Sandeep Saxena, for the respondent. BY THE COURT:
At the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and this intra Court appeal is being disposed off finally.
2. Appellant has preferred this intra Court appeal challenging impugned order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Single Bench, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12391/2010 filed by the writ petitioner/respondent, Savita, has been allowed.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an Advertisement No. 3/2010 was issued by the appellant, which was published on 29.05.2010, inviting applications for the posts of Junior Scientific Officer, Junior Environment Engineer and LDC cum Data Entry Clerk. The facility of submitting application form through on-line was provided. The last date for submitting the applications through on-line was 15.06.2010 and signed copy, i.e. hard copy was to be submitted before 20.06.2010. The writ-petitioner initially filled the online form in respect of post of Junior Scientific Officer in place of post of Junior Environment Engineer. When she came to know about the error committed by her, then she approached the respondent to correct the name of post from Junior Scientific Officer to Junior Environment Engineer, but her request was declined. Thereafter, she approached the Single Bench by way of filing writ petition on 08.09.2010. The Single Bench vide interim order dated 09.09.2010 directed the respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in the written examination for the post of Junior Environment Engineer scheduled to be held on 12.09.2010. The writ-petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination. Thereafter, an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India was filed by the appellant for vacation of ex-parte interim stay order, which was dismissed by the Single Bench on 20.11.2010. The petitioner qualified for interview, therefore, on her application, an interim order was passed by the Single Bench on 20.11.2010 to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview provisionally for the post of Junior Environment Engineer against OBC quota, which was held on 23.11.2010. The writ-petitioner was interviewed and her final result, which was kept in sealed cover, was produced before the Court, which was seen, again sealed and returned to appellant. Learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions of the parties, came to a conclusion that due to human error, a mistake was committed by the petitioner by mentioning the post of Junior Scientific Officer in place of Junior Environment Engineer, as she is not even eligible for the post of Junior Scientific Officer. One post of Junior Environment Engineer was also kept reserved for the writ-petitioner. The Single Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to declare final result of the petitioner for the post of Junior Environment Engineer and to consider her name for the appointment, in case her name finds place in the order of merit in accordance with law. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid direction of the Single Bench, the appellant has preferred this intra Court appeal.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that last date for filing the form through on-line was 15.06.2010 and hard copy was required to be submitted before 20.06.2010. Since, the petitioner filled her form for the post of Junior Scientific Officer and she was not eligible for the said post, therefore, her application form was rejected. Subsequently, she filed an application to allow her to change the name of post, but since her application was not in time, therefore, it was also rejected. He further submitted that the Single Bench has wrongly held that it was a human error. He also submitted that learned Single Judge himself in Bhag Chand Verma Vs. RPSC & Others(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15289/2010) decided on 10.05.2011 took a view that such change in the application form cannot be allowed after expiry of last date for submission of form. He also relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 571/2004 decided on 13.04.2010 and judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. M.V.V.S. Murthy, 1987(Supp) SCC 371.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order passed by the Single Bench and submitted that so far as post of Junior Scientific Officer is concerned, the petitioner was not eligible, therefore, she could not have filled her form for the said post. It was only because of a human error that she clicked on the button relating to Junior Scientific Officer. He also submitted that in similar circumstances, the appellant allowed number of persons/candidates to correct mistakes committed by them in their hard copies of application form. He also submitted that one of the example, which finds place in the order passed by the single Bench, is of Neha Vyas. In support of his submissions, he referred judgments delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2011 AIR SCW 4807 and Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, 2011(2) SCT 610.
6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and other documents available on record.
7. During the pendency of this intra Court appeal, the appellant filed Additional Affidavit explaining the case of Neha Vyas. It has also been averred in the Additional Affidavit that some applications were also received on 22.06.2010 and onward, but those were not at all entertained and were entered separately in the Receipt Register.
8. Respondent, Savita has also filed an Additional Affidavit on 16.12.2011 stating therein that application form of one candidate, namely Dharini Jain, who submitted hard copy of on line application form and she has written her percentage of marks obtained by her in her own handwriting in the application form and receipt has been given to the candidate on 27.06.2010. She was granted relaxation by the appellant on her application, which was received on 07.09.2010. Respondent Savita has also mentioned some other facts on the basis of information received by her under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 to the effect that number of other applicants were allowed to change their qualification, date of birth and other information, after due date, i.e. 20.06.2010 by appellant.
9. The appellant has further filed Counter Affidavit dated 21.02.2012 explaining the averments made by respondent, Savita in her Additional Affidavit. The appellant has mentioned that the applications of other persons were received in time, but they were entered subsequently.
10. Learned Single Judge in its order has specifically mentioned that it is not controverted by the respondent that writ-petitioner was not eligible for the post of Junior Environment Engineer on the date of advertisement or lacking any qualification or either of the conditions of eligibility notified by the respondent in its Advertisement No. 3/2010, which may deprive her from participating in the selection process initiated by the respondent. Learned Single Judge further observed that indisputably the petitioner was eligible for the post of Junior Environment Engineer, but because of human error, in place of Junior Environment Engineer, she pressed the code of Junior Scientific Officer and from the record, it cannot be inferred that it was deliberate or with some other ulterior reasons and that being so, it appears to be a technical mistake, which the petitioner committed while submitting her application and much before the examination was held by the respondent, the application was submitted by the petitioner seeking adequate corrections in the post mentioned in the application form.
11. We have also examined the application of Neha Vyas, submitted by the writ-petitioner, whose application bears date 16.06.2010, but seal of employer shows that it was entered at Serial No. 5261 on 22.06.2010. Although, the appellant has tried to explain that this application was received before 20.06.2010 and it was entered only on 22.06.2010, but this fact is not disputed that last date of submission of on-line form was 15.06.2010. Similar examples have been given by both the parties in their Additional Affidavits and Counter Affidavit. One fact is clear that the writ-petitioner was not eligible for the post of Junior Scientific Officer and she was eligible for the post of Junior Environment Engineer. Learned Single Judge has recorded a finding of fact and we are satisfied that there was no concealment or suppression of material fact on the part of the writ-petitioner in respect of her qualification or any of the particulars. Learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that such error was a human error. In our view also, the error committed by petitioner was bonafide and much before the date of examination, the application for correction was filed.
12. It is pertinent to mention that no candidate will fill up the form for a post, for which he/she is not eligible. It shows the bonafides of the writ-petitioner also. Writ-petitioner approached the Single Bench well in time. Writ petition was filed on 08.09.2010, much before the date of written examination. Interim order was passed by the Single Bench and the petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination. The application, filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of interim stay order, was also dismissed by the Single Bench after hearing the parties. Writ-petitioner was, thereafter, allowed to participate in the interview also. Result of the petitioner was kept in sealed cover. One post of Junior Environment Engineer was also ordered to be kept reserved and there is no dispute that said post is still lying vacant. Learned Single Judge after considering the submissions of parties, has directed the respondent to declare the result of the writ petitioner and to consider her candidature, in case her name finds place in the order of merit, in accordance with law.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed much reliance on Bhag Chand Verma Vs. RPSC & Others(supra). The said judgment was also referred before the Single Bench and we find that the same was examined by the Single Bench and it was found to be distinguishable. We have again examined the judgment delivered in the case of Bhag Chand Verma Vs. RPSC & Others(supra) and we also find that ratio of that case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. We have also examined the judgment of Full Bench of this Court delivered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 571/2004(supra) and the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M.V.V.S. Murthy(supra). The judgments were considered in detail with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and after considering the same, we find that the said cases were decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of those cases and they are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar(supra) and Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others(supra). Their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a candidate has suppressed some fact relating to pending criminal case and in case said offence is not of serious nature, then, the same would not declare him/her disqualified. After considering these judgments, we find that the same are also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in case order of Single Bench is allowed to stand, then, other candidates, who approached the appellant, after the last date, for correction in their application forms and were not allowed to correct the same, may approach this Court for the same relief now, which has been granted to the writ-petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that during the course of arguments, the Officer-in-charge of the appellant, who is present in person in the Court, fairly admitted that the present process of selection took place in the year 2010 and thereafter, one another selection process has been completed and no other candidate, who participated in selection process of 2010, has approached this Court or is pursuing his case before the appellant. He also submitted that whatever representations were received by the appellant, the same had already been decided and as per his knowledge, no notice from any Court/Forum of legal proceedings has been received by the appellant. Even otherwise, learned Single Judge after considering submissions of parties and scrutiny of record, recorded a finding that such an error on the part of the petitioner was only a human error and we are also of the same view. Each case is ordinarily decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of that particular case.
17. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that reasons assigned by learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and issuing the directions for considering the case of the petitioner, are absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for in this intra Court appeal.
18. In view of above, we find no force in any of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. Stay application also stands dismissed. Since we have decided this appeal in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, it is directed that this judgment will not be treated as precedent.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J.
Manoj,
S.No.S.1.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
MANOJ NARWANI JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT.