Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Manoj Kumar vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 19 July, 2017

Bench: Govind Mathur, Vinit Kumar Mathur

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                D.B. Writ Restoration No. 93 / 2017
Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Chand, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Mukam Post Mor, Tehsil Ghadi, District Banswara.
                                                       ----Petitioner
                                Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary Home Department, Govt.
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director General of Police, Jaipur.

3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Banswara District Banswara.
                                                    ----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s)   : Mr. Devendra Sanwalot
For Respondent(s) : -
_____________________________________________________
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 19/07/2017 Having considered the facts averred in the application, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the application. Having considered the averments contained in the application, the same is allowed. The appeal is restored at its original number.

Heard learned counsel on merits too.

From perusal of the facts averred in the petition for writ as well as in the judgment impugned, it is apparent that the issue involved in this petition for writ pertains to a process of selection that commenced in the year 2010 and completed soon thereafter. The candidature of the appellant was rejected by the respondents (2 of 2) [WRES-93/2017] as the application form submitted by him was not completed in all respects. It is submitted that the error on part of the appellant was quite minor and therefore, no need was their to reject the application form.

We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The petitioner failed to mention his correct date of birth in the OMR sheet which was to be scanned by the mechanical manner. Any error that is to be scanned by mechanical/ digitalised manner cannot be said to be a minor one, as the entire exercise is to be done by artificial intelligence and not by the manual checking. In view of it, learned Single Bench rightly dismissed the petition. No interference, therefore, is warranted.

The appeal is dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR) J. (GOVIND MATHUR) J. Anil Kumar Choudhary