Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Natwar Singh Shekhawat S/O Shri Kishore ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 February, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:4898]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13582/2021
Natwar Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Kishore Singh Shekhawat,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo- Rundal, Via- Morija, Distt. -
Jaipur-303805, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel And Training, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Chairman,
Jaipur Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305001.
3. Commercial Tax Department, Rajasthan, Through
Commissioner, Kar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road,
Ambedkar Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Raghav, AAG
Mr. M. F. Baig
Mr. Ayush Singh with
Mr. Alfahad Jaman for
Mr. Punit Singhvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
Reportable
Reserved on 09/01/2024
Pronounced on 06/02/2024
1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"A. To direct the Department of Personnel and Training, Rajasthan to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of "Junior Commercial Taxes Officer" after treating his preference of department as "Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Sub- ordinate Services".
B. To allow the petitioner to rectify the error committed in detailed application form under the section of "Preference of Department" and petitioner may be allowed to mark his preference as "Rajasthan Commercial Taxes sub-ordinate Services.
c. To direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner as granted to similarly situated candidates.
d. To pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit, just and necessary."
(Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (2 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]
2. The ineluctable and concise factual matrix of the instant petition, necessary for its just and efficacious disposal, is noted herein-under:-
2.1 That on 02.04.2018, the respondent-RPSC issued an advertisement for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2018. 2.2 That vide said advertisement, DC i.e. Departmental Candidates and ME i.e. Ministerial Employees, were eligible to apply only for the Sub-ordinate Services in their respective departments of employment. In essence, the ministerial employee of the concerned department could only apply in their respective department, where they were rendering their services. 2.3 That on 25.05.2018, the petitioner submitted his application form wherein, he clearly stated that he is working as a Ministerial Employee (ME) and hence, is eligible for the Departmental Candidate (DC) Quota.
2.4 That on 31.05.2019, the respondent-RPSC published the result for the preliminary round, wherein all the candidates were declared successful, irrespective of their parent department. 2.5 That the aforesaid action of the respondent-RPSC in selecting all the candidates irrespective of taking note of their parent department was challenged before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7737/2020 titled as Prem Singh Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.12.2020, the said petition was allowed in light of the undertaking furnished by the respondent-RPSC that the result of the preliminary examination would be revised and published after duly verifying (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (3 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] the status of Departmental Candidate (DC) category of the applicants.
2.6 That on 12.03.2021, in compliance of the aforementioned order dated 16.12.2020, the respondent-RPSC, after due verification, published a merit list for the preliminary examination for the candidates in the Ex-Army, Departmental Candidate (DC) and Outstanding Sportsman categories. Resultantly, the petitioner got selected in the DC Category bearing Roll No. 816582. 2.7 That the petitioner, after getting selected in the main list, submitted his Detailed Application Form (DAP) wherein he specifically mentioned that he is applying under the DC Category whilst mentioning his department of previous employment being the Rajasthan Commercial Department. However, inadvertently, the petitioner clicked on the State Services Column as opposed to the Sub-ordinate Services Column.
2.8 That the petitioner was declared successful in the interview in the GE, DC and ME Category. He secured 287.25 marks and 7 th Rank in the DC Category.
2.9 That on 25.08.2021, despite being successful, the respondent-RPSC did not call the petitioner for the medical examination, whilst calling the other candidates from the DC Category.
2.10 That being aggrieved, on 27.08.2021, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation before the respondent-
RPSC. However, no heed was paid to the same.
2.11 That on 03.12.2021, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition, wherein this Court, vide interim order dated 03.12.2021, directed the respondent-RPSC to keep one post of Junior (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (4 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] Commercial Taxes Officer vacant, till the final disposal of the instant petition.
2.12 That on 26.12.2021, the respondent-RPSC issued the appointment orders of all the other candidates of the DC Category. In the said order, at point No.2, the respondent-RPSC kept one seat vacant, in pursuance of the interim order dated 03.12.2021.
3. In this factual background, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature from the instant recruitment process, on account of a mere human error committed while filling up the Detailed Application Form (DAP). It is averred that in the said form, the petitioner specifically mentioned that he is applying under the DC Category whilst mentioning his department of previous employment being the Rajasthan Commercial Department. However, inadvertently, the only error crept in when the petitioner clicked on the State Services Column as opposed to the Sub-ordinate Services Column. Therefore, the inadvertent and bonafide mistake committed by the petitioner ought to be condoned as the same shall not cause any prejudice to third party rights, especially in light of the interim protection granted by this Court vide order 03.12.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is substantively appointed as a Ministerial Employee with the Rajasthan Commercial Tax Department and is governed by the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter, Rules of 1975). Moreover, in the advertisement so issued by the respondent-RPSC, it was expressly stated that for availing the DC quota, the (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (5 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] ministerial employees of the concerned department could apply in their parent department, where they were rendering their services. Accordingly, the petitioner applied and was even declared successful in the interview in the DC Category. He secured 287.25 marks and 7th Rank in the DC Category. However, the petitioner was not called for the medical examination, on account of the inadvertent error of clicking on the State Services Column as opposed to the Sub-ordinate Services Column, whilst filling up the Detailed Application Form (DAP). In light of the aforesaid, it was argued that substantive rights of the petitioner cannot be disregarded merely on account of technical errors, especially when the error was bonafide in nature and no third party rights shall be disturbed/affected. In support of the said submissions, reliance was placed upon the dictum of this Court as enunciated in D.B. SAW No. 1700/2017 titled as Kavita Choudhary vs. The Registrar (Exam.), Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC has submitted that by way of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought directions against the respondent-RPSC to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Junior Commercial Taxes Officer after treating his preference of department as "Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services". The petitioner has further prayed for rectification of the error committed by him in the Detailed Application Form (DAP) under the section of "Preference of Department" qua which he has sought directions to be allowed to mark his preference as "Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services". In this regard, learned counsel submitted that in the Detailed Application (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (6 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] Form (DAP), the petitioner admittedly did not furnish any preference of Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services. Therefore, since the petitioner failed to furnish any preference qua the said sub-ordinate services, he could not have been allotted the said services and resultantly, the petitioner cannot claim for rectifying the error committed by him at this belated stage. Thus, the petitioner himself is responsible for not being allotted the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services and as a result, he cannot seek directions from this court for his own lapses. As a result, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. In addition to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC placed reliance upon Rule 20(3) of the Rajasthan State and Sub-ordinate Services (Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 and contended that the order of preference once exercised by a candidate cannot be changed. Therefore, the preference of services furnished by the petitioner in the Detailed Application Form (DAP) was final and as a result, he cannot claim for any rectification at a belated stage. To further draw out a case for delay on part of the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC argued that in the advertisement so issued on 02.04.2018, the RPSC granted 7 day's time to the applicants to rectify their mistakes in the filling up of the application form. However, the said option was not exercised by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to rectify his mistake at a belated stage, especially in an examination which affects the public at large whilst creating third party rights for the other candidates. In support of the arguments noted herein- above, reliance was placed upon the dictum of this Court as (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (7 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] enunciated in D.B. SAW No. 9382/2020 titled as Ashish Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manish Bakawale: Civil Appeal No. 7721/2021 and Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. UPSC and Ors.: Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 11977- 11978/2012.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the petition and perused the judgments cited at Bar.
8. At the outset, prior to the discussion on merits, this Court deems it appropriate to take note of the material stipulations, as prescribed by the advertisement dated 02.04.2018. They are noted herein-under:-
8.1 That the advertisement dated 02.04.2018 was issued for the examination of State and Subordinate Services. 8.2 That vide said advertisement, the Departmental Candidates (DC) and Ministerial Employees (ME) were only eligible to apply for sub-ordinate services within their respective departments of employment. Resultantly, the ministerial employee of the concerned department could only apply in his/her department of employment. In this regard, the following note was incorporated in the advertisement dated 02.04.2018, as reproduced herein-under:
"fo'ks"k uksV%& v/khuLFk lsokvksa ds Øe la[;k 5 ls 8 ,ao 13 ds inksa esa gh foHkkxh; deZpkfj;ksa gsrq in vkjf{kr gSA vr% bu vkjf{kr inksa gsrq lacaf/kr foHkkx esa dk;Zjr ea=kyf;d deZpkjh gh vkosnu djsa ,oa vkosnu i= ds dkWye esa Mhlh ¼foHkkxh; deZpkjh½ dk mYys[k vo'; djsa] vU;Fkk Mhlh (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (8 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] oxZ dk ykHk ns; ugha gksXkkA vU; foHkkxksa esa dk;Zjr dkfeZd ;fn bl oxZ gsrq vkosnu djrs gSa rks mUgsa bl oxZ Mhlh gsrq ik= ugha ekuk tk,xkA ".
9. In this regard, upon a perusal of Annexure-1 i.e. the petitioner's application form on the Online Recruitment Portal, it is noted that whilst filling up the said form, under the head of 'Special Category', the petitioner has expressly stated himself to be a Departmental Candidate (DC). At the same time, in the said form, the petitioner has also duly penned down the name of his department of employment to be the 'Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service'.
10. The aforesaid fact of the petitioner being a Departmental Candidate (DC) duly rendering his service with the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service is further re- iterated and/or established by the fact that pursuant to the declaration of the result of the preliminary round by the respondent-RPSC wherein all candidates were declared successful irrespective of their parent department, a challenge was raised before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7737/2020 titled as Prem Singh Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan challenging the impugned action of the respondent-RPSC declaring all candidates to be successful without having checked and/or taken note of their status as a Departmental Candidate. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2020 in light of the undertaking furnished by the respondent-RPSC that the result of the preliminary examination would be revised and published after duly verifying the status of Departmental Candidates (DC) category of the applicants/candidates. Thereafter, in compliance of the aforementioned order dated 16.12.2020, the respondent-RPSC (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (9 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] published a merit list for the preliminary examination on 12.03.2021 for the candidates in the Ex-Army, Departmental Candidate (DC) and Outstanding Sportsman categories wherein after the due verification of the status of falling within the Departmental Candidate (DC) category, the petitioner got selected in the DC Category bearing Roll No. 816582.
11. In pursuance to the declaration of the merit list for the preliminary examination on 12.03.2021, the petitioner submitted his Detailed Application Form (DAP) i.e. Annexure-6, wherein he specifically/expressly mentioned that he is applying in the category of Departmental Candidate (DC). At the same time, the petitioner also duly mentioned that he is rendering his services in the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service. However, due to an inadvertent mistake, the petitioner under the head of 'Department of Preference', selected the 'State Services' column as opposed to the option of 'Sub-ordinate services', in which the petitioner was rendering his services. Therefore, on account of the same, despite having been declared successful in the interview of the Departmental Candidate (DC) category, the respondent-RPSC did not call the petitioner for the medical examination whilst calling all the other candidates from the DC category.
12. Therefore, merely on account of an inadvertent and bonafide mistake, on account of which the petitioner wrongly selected the Department of Preference as State Services as opposed to Sub-ordinate Services in the Detailed Application Form (DAP), the petitioner cannot be precluded from appearing in the medical examination and/or the subsequent appointment, especially when the petitioner has been meritorious in the (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (10 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] preliminary round as is reflected vide merit list dated 12.03.2021 as well as the interview conducted in pursuance thereof, wherein the petitioner was declared successful, having secured 287.25 marks and the 7th Rank in the Departmental Candidate (DC) Category.
13. In addition to the aforesaid, it is also noted that the petitioner is a substantively appointed Ministerial Employee of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department, who is governed by the Rules of 1975. Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1975 mandates that 12.5% quota for appointment on the post of "Junior Commercial Tax Officer" is reserved for ministerial staff of the Rajasthan Commercial Tax Sub-ordinate Services only and no other cadre of Departmental Candidate was eligible for the said quota. The said provision is reproduced herein-under:-
"Methods of Recruitment:- Recruitment to the service after the commencement of these rules, shall be made by the following methods in the proportions indicated in Column 3 of the schedule:-
(a) by directed recruitment in accordance with part IV of these rules; provided that 12.5% of the posts of "Junior Commercial Taxes Officer" to be filed in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the Ministerial Staff of the Commercial Taxes Department holding a post in the cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the rules. The reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.
"Providing that two posts of "Junior Commercial Taxes Officer" shall be reserved for being filled in by promotion from amongst Jamadars of the Commercial Taxes Department subject to their fulfilling qualifications equivalent to Higher Secondary Examination and if they have put in not less than 10 years shall be no further promotion till this reserved quota is filled up."
(Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:4898] (11 of 16) [CW-13582/2021]
14. It is noted that the object of the aforementioned Rule 6 of the Rules of 1975 providing reservation for ministerial staff is to accord the opportunity to the ministerial employees to get accelerated promotion on the post of 'Junior Commercial Taxes Officer', after passing the examination in an open competition. Following the said mandate, at every step of the instant recruitment process, as noted above, the petitioner has informed the respondent-RPSC about being Departmental Candidate (DC) in the Department of Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service. In addition to the same, even the respondent-RPSC itself treated the petitioner to be a Departmental Candidate (DC) on the basis of the information furnished by the petitioner in the instant recruitment process, as is reflected vide merit list dated 12.03.2021. Therefore, denying petitioner the appointment on account of a mere human error of inadvertently and bonafidely having selected the wrong Department of Preference i.e. instead of Sub-ordinate Services, the petitioner opted for State Services, the petitioner who is meritorious and has categorically at every step of the way declared his department as well as his status as a Departmental Candidate, cannot be denied appointment on the post so advertised.
15. Furthermore, the special note incorporated in the advertisement dated 02.04.2018 (Re: Page 131) specifically mandates that the ministerial employee of the said department shall qualify in his own respective department only, for the purpose of availing the quota of Department Candidate (DC) category. Therefore, it is clear that as per the terms of the advertisement, the quota of Departmental Candidate (DC) (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (12 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] category is available only for the sub-ordinate services in the respective department. Therefore, considering that the petitioner in his Detailed Application Form (DAP) specifically mentioned that he falls under the Departmental Candidate (DC) category and also mentioned the name of his department i.e. Rajasthan Commercial Taxes, it becomes abundantly clear that the petitioner at every stage of the recruitment process informed the respondent-RPSC regarding his status of being a Departmental Candidate (DC). Thus, non-consideration of the petitioner under the Departmental Candidate (DC) category simply on account of a technical error of not clicking against the name of the 'Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Sub-ordinate Services' as opposed to clicking on 'Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Service (State Service)', the petitioner cannot be denied appointment, having established his meritorious candidature as well as his status as Departmental Candidate (DC), which has been duly recognized even by the respondent-RPSC itself.
16. Furthermore, it is also noted that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature shall also be contrary to the doctrine of legitimate expectation as well as the doctrine of meritocracy, as the petitioner has remained diligent throughout the recruitment process and has always furnished the correct information with respect to his candidature. Being a meritorious candidate, who has been verified as a Departmental Candidate (DC) by the respondent-RPSC itself, the mere human error of wrongly marking the preference of service at Page 51 of the petition i.e. Detailed Application Form (DAP) cannot be a ground for ousting the petitioner from the recruitment process, where he is otherwise (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (13 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] completely eligible. The said ousting from the recruitment process shall prejudice the rights of the petitioner as conferred upon him by Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
17. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to place reliance upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as enunciated in Kavita Choudhary (Supra). In the said judgement, this Court allowed rectification of the error committed in the filling up of the application form where the candidate was disentitled from claiming the benefits of reservation for which she/her was otherwise entitled to, whilst noting that a bonafide mistake which does not prejudice a third party should be allowed to be cured. The relevant extract is reproduced herein- under:-
"8. Mistakes can be of two kinds. First kind would be where nobody is affected by a mistake. The second is where a third party is affected by a mistake.
9. The difference in the two mistakes would be that whereas rectification of the first would cause no prejudice, rectification of the second would cause a prejudice.
10. We find in the decisions dated 31.07.2013 in D.B.S.A.W No.875/2012, State of Rajasthan Vs. Datar Singh, dated 11.10.2017 in S.B.C.W.P No.7159/2017, Dinesh Kumar Mahawar Vs. RPSC & Ors., dated 27.01.2017 in S.B.C.W.P No.906/2017, Shimala Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dated 24.11.2016 in S.B.C.W.P No.15654/2016, Sapana Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan& Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P.(Civil) No.3721/2017, Arkshit Kapoor Vs. Union of India & Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P. (Civil) No.11642/2016, Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors., passed by this Court and the Delhi High Court, the consistent view taken is that a bonafide mistake which does not affect a third party right should be allowed to be cured.
11. We dispose of the appeal directing that the appellant be treated as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (14 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] candidate and we permit her to participate in the further selection process. Needless to state the respondents would be entitled to verify the certificate submitted by the appellant."
18. Even in the facts and circumstances of the instant petition, no rights accruing to any third-parties are affected/prejudiced. In this regard, it is noted that the respondent-RPSC issued a letter dated 25.08.2021, wherein the petitioner was not called for the medical examination despite being meritorious in the interview. Consequently, the petitioner preferred the instant petition seeking a writ of mandamus to issue appointment in favour of the petitioner on the post of Junior Taxes Commercial Officer. When the petition came up on a stay application, this Court vide order dated 03.12.2021, directed the respondent-RPSC to keep a seat vacant for the petitioner till the final disposal of the petition. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent-RPSC informing them regarding the said interim protection granted vide order dated 03.12.2021. Thereafter, considering the said representation, the respondent-RPSC issued appointment orders for the other selected candidates vide order dated 26.12.2021. In the said appointment orders, at Point No.2, the respondents kept one seat vacant, in light of the order granting interim protection dated 03.12.2021. Thus, it is evident that the respondent-RPSC have kept one seat vacant and have not created any third-party rights on the seat of the petitioner.
19. At this juncture, this Court also deems it appropriate to note that the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC regarding the petitioner approaching the Court (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (15 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] at a belated stage cannot be countenanced. In this regard, it is noted that the period of 7 days for rectifying the application form was only applicable for the submission of the initial application form in the Year 2018. The said application form was submitted by the petitioner on 25.05.2018, which did not require any rectification. The dispute in the instant petition revolves around the incorrect marking of preferences in the Detailed Application Form (DAP), which was filled up on 25.03.2021. In the said Detailed Application Form (DAP), there was no direction regarding the rectification of mistakes within a stipulated time frame and/or mechanism. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC qua the petitioner approaching the Court at a belated stage, is factually untenable.
20. Lastly, this Court deems it appropriate to note that the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC that as per Rule 20(3) of the Rules of 1999, the order of preference once exercised cannot be changed, is not worthy of being countenanced. In this regard, it is noted that as per Rule 20 of the Rules of 1999, it is abundantly clear that the said Rule is subject to the reservation to OBC/SC/ST,NGE, Women Candidates, physically handicapped person, ministerial staff, in respect of posts included in Schedule-I and Schedule-II. Therefore, the provision of marking preference cannot be given beyond the category of the candidate i.e. Departmental Candidate (DC). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the rule of preference is not applicable to the petitioner as his candidature is confined to sub-ordinate service in the Department of Rajasthan Commercial Taxes. The mere marking of other (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:4898] (16 of 16) [CW-13582/2021] departments or service would not entitle him any preference in the other department or state service. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC is not legally tenable.
21. Thus, non-consideration of the petitioner under the Departmental Candidate (DC) category simply on account of a technical error of not clicking against the name of the 'Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Sub-ordinate Services' as opposed to clicking on 'Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Service (State Service)', the petitioner cannot be denied appointment, having already established his meritorious candidature as well as his status as a Departmental Candidate (DC), which has been duly recognized by the respondent-RPSC itself.
22. Conclusively, it is noted that to err is human and to forgive, is divine.
23. Accordingly, in light of the observations made herein- above, the petition is allowed in terms of the prayers so made, including the grant of all consequential benefits within a period of three months. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /364 (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:42:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)