Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surabhi Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2022
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9735/2022
1. Surabhi Choudhary D/o Shri Manglesh Kumar Bhargava,
Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of B-79, Kanta Khaturia
Colony, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).
2. Jai Prakash S/o Shri Satish Kumar, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Village Rambash Jhopri, Post Birampur, Tehsil
Tijara, District Alwar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To
The Government, Department Of School Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura, Jaipur
Through Its Chairman.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 14/07/2022 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the amended advertisement dated 30.06.2022 (Annex.3) for recruitment on the post of Basic Computer Instructor and Senior Computer Instructor.
It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that an advertisement dated 01.02.2021 (Annex.1) was issued by the respondent - Board for appointment on the post of Basic Computer Instructor and Senior Computer Instructor.
In the advertisement, there was no requirement of having obtaining minimum marks in each of the papers for the (Downloaded on 14/07/2022 at 09:16:25 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-9735/2022] competitive exams to be held pursuant to the recruitment notification.
The petitioners participated in the competitive exam pursuant to the advertisement and the examinations were held on 08.06.2022, however, after the exam was held, on 18.06.2022, the amended notification (Annex.3) dated 30.06.2022 was issued inter-alia indicating that the Board shall not recommend any candidate, who has failed to obtain a minimum of 40% marks in each of the papers of the competitive examination alongwith proviso pertaining to relaxation for candidates belonging to schedule castes and schedule tribes.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of the respondents in adding the proviso by amendment dated 30.06.2022 amounts to changing rules of the game after the game is over i.e. once the petitioners have already appeared in the examination, on 18.06.2022 fixing of the requirement of having minimum 40% marks in each of the papers, which is against the advertisement itself, deserves to be set-aside.
Further submissions have been made that the respondents once did not indicate the said provisions in the advertisement are not entitled to change the terms of the advertisement in between the recruitment process and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.
The amended advertisement dated 30.06.2022 (Annex.3) refers to Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Educational (State & (Downloaded on 14/07/2022 at 09:16:25 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-9735/2022] Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021, wherein, it has been inter-alia provided as under:-
"The Commission/Board/Committee/Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 40 percentage marks in each of the papers of the competitive examination: Provided that,-
(i) the percentage fixed as above all shall be relaxed by 5 percentage for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes."
From the notification it is apparent that the recruitment Board apparently missed out indicating the provision of Rule 28 in the advertisement. Merely because the Board missed out in indicating the provision, the same cannot invalidate the indication made by way of advertisement dated 30.06.2022.
The submissions made regarding the Board being estopped from changing the condition once the examination was held on 18.06.2022 cannot be countenanced, as there cannot be any estoppel against the statute.
The provision of Rule 28 is clear requiring the minimum 40% marks in each of the papers in the competitive examination.
In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in the petition.
The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 103-pradeep/-
(Downloaded on 14/07/2022 at 09:16:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)