Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs State (Rural Develop An Panchayati ) Anr on 23 May, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 690 / 2017
Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Sharma, by Caste
Jangid (Khati), Aged About 33 Years, Bonli, District Sawai
Madhopur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Distt. Sawai Madhopur
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S. Jadaun for Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Order 23/05/2017 Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the respondents be directed to change the category of the petitioner from General to OBC category.
Briefly stated, the petitioner had applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III. After the result was declared, petitioner submitted an application for change of his category and requested to respondents that his candidature be considered in OBC category.
The question raised in the present writ petition is not new to this court. Recently, on 27.03.2017 in case of Ram Lal Meena v.
RPSC, Ajmer, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10310/2016, this court considered the similar controversy. It will be apposite here (2 of 4) [CW-690/2017] to reproduce relevant portion from the case of Ram Lal Meena (supra) wherein facts and contentions raised were noticed and was held, as under:-
"The respondent RPSC refused to change the category of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and co-ordinate Bench on 3.8.2016 issued notice to the respondents and directed the respondents to provisionally interview the petitioner.
The result of the interview was kept in a sealed cover. The learned counsel for the respondent RPSC, has brought the result. The learned counsel for the respondent after opening the result has submitted that the petitioner has secured 54 marks in the interview.
The learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that if marks of the interview are added to the aggregate marks secured by the petitioner in the written examination, petitioner makes to the category of Physically Handicapped, low vision category. However, if the petitioner is permitted to continue in his category, for which he had given option, he will be ousted from the selection process.
The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur, in State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Jagdish Prasad & Anr., D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 611/2016, decided on 9.9.2016, wherein it was held as under:-
"It is not considered necessary to burden the present order with repeated precedents on the issue in view of (2013) 11 SCC 58 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. state (NCT of Delhi) which after considering a plethora of precedents has observed as follows:-
"11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfils the requisite qualification.
22. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement."
The advertisement did not provide for any relaxation. In the circumstances any relaxation to the respondent alone would (3 of 4) [CW-690/2017] itself be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution suffering from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination denying similar benefit to others who could also have made requests for change of category had they been made aware that it was so permissible even after the last date for submission of applications. An individual benefit to the respondent would make justice individualised which again would be anathema to the law and the Constitution.
In (1994) 2 SCC 723 U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P. v. Alpana) the respondent acquired the eligibility qualification after the last date for submission of applications as the results of the examination was published thereafter. The High Court directed her to be called for interview. Disapproving of the same it was observed :-
"6......This approach of the High Court cannot be supported on any rule or prevalent practice nor can it be supported on equitable considerations. In fact there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the refusal of the Public Service Commission to interview her in the absence of any specific rule in that behalf. We find it difficult to give recognition to such an approach of the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of applications. If once such an approach is recognised there would be several applications received from such candidates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of the selecting authorities but would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withhold interviews till the results are declared, thereby causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for long spells of time. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the view of the High Court impugned in this appeal."
In Jamna Rajpurohit (supra) significantly the Division Bench itself observed that permitting change of category after the last date for submission of applications would make the selections an unending process and yet proceeded to direct it to be done on basis of sympathy. Jamna Rajpurohit (supra) has therefore to be held as per incuriam. The order under appeal based upon the same is also held to be unsustainable." The learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon a judgment dated 3.2.2017 rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in bunch of writ petitions, lead case being Vinay Moha Kiradoo vs. RPSC & Ors., SBCWP No. 16720/2016, wherein it was held that if a candidate is permitted to edit online application after declaration of result, no sanctity can be attached to the selection process. The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly urged that after the (4 of 4) [CW-690/2017] cut off marks for all separate categories are declared, if any change of category to the advantage of the candidate is permitted, then the result and selection process shall never attain finality. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that a candidate merely to take advantage of the declaration of the result, as a matter of convenience, may apply for change of the category and not for bona fide reasons.
The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly relied upon the judgments noted above to canvass that if after declaration of the result candidates are permitted to change their category, as per their convenience, then selection process will become an unending process.
In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Jagdish Prasad & Anr. (supra) and reasoning propounded in Vinay Mohan Kiradoo's case (supra), this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner and the present petition is dismissed. "
Since the facts in the present case are akin to the facts of Ram Lal Meena's case (supra), for the reasons stated therein, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J. Govind/