Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2019
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8698/2019
Shakti Singh S/o Sh. Balveer Singh, Aged About 21 Years,
Resident Of Rabariawas, Jaitaran, District Pali (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Defence, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. Headquarter Recruiting Zone, Jaipur, Through Zonal
Recruitment Officer, Jaipur, C/o 56 Apo.
3. Army Recruitment Officer, Jodhpur, C/o 56 Apo.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8746/2019
Sandeep Sankhla S/o Sh. Kaluram, Aged About 19 Years,
Resident Of Dev Sagar, Deepawas Road, Raipur, District Pali
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Defence, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. Headquarter Recruiting Zone, Jaipur Through Zonal
Recruitment Officer, Jaipur, C/o 56 Apo.
3. Army Recuritment Officer, Jodhpur, C/o 56 Apo
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9536/2019
Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Manohar Lal, Aged About 20 Years,
Resident Of Bhadwo Ki Dhani, Saran Nagar, Samrau, District
Jodhpur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Defense, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. Headquarter Recruiting Zone, Jaipur, Through Zonal
Recruitment Officer, Jaipur C/o 56 Apo.
3. Army Recruitment Officer, Jodhpur, C/o 56 Apo.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/07/2019 at 10:19:06 PM)
(2 of 7)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, Addl. Solicitor
General.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 09/07/2019 These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to accept hard copy of the applications of the petitioners and consider their candidature for participating in the rally scheduled to be held from 01.07.2019 pursuant to the recruitment process.
It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioners being aspirants to participate in the rally to join Armed Forces, having the requisite educational qualification, filled their on-line application forms on various dates. The last date was 20.05.2019. The petitioners being qualified waited for getting the call letter, however, when the call letter was not received, the petitioners contacted the Army Recruitment Officer ('ARO'), Jodhpur and was informed that their applications have been rejected.
It is submitted that when the petitioners made query on the website (Annex.2) it was indicated that their applications have been 'cancelled by system'. Whereafter, the petitioners met the recruitment officer seeking permission to appear in the rally, however, the ARO refused such permission and / or to take the hard copy from the petitioners.
It is submitted in the writ petitions that the petitioners' applications were rejected on account of some technical glitch on (Downloaded on 12/07/2019 at 10:19:06 PM) (3 of 7) part of the respondents, which is evident from the indication made in Annex.-2 i.e. cancelled by system and therefore, the respondents be directed to permit the petitioners to participate in the army rally.
By the interim orders, the petitioners were permitted to participate in the rally scheduled to be held on 07.07.2019, however, it was directed that such participation shall not create any right in favour of the petitioners.
A reply to the writ petition as well as application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India was filed by the respondents on 06.07.2019, when time was granted to the petitioners to file rejoinder, which rejoinder has been filed.
In reply filed by the respondents, submissions have been made that the petitioners though attempted to submit applications, could not submit the applications as they failed to do the needful as required. Submissions have been made with reference to the material placed on record that though the petitioners did fill-up the forms, however, the same were 'not submitted'. In relation to the allegations pertaining to the technical glitch and the fact that the website indicated that the applications filed by the petitioners were 'cancelled by the system', it is indicated that earlier, reason for rejection was an omnibus status 'cancelled by system' was being indicated. However, on changes being made, vide Annexure-R/3 it is apparent that the application was 'not submitted' by the petitioners and therefore, admit card, was not generated and the petitioners were, therefore, not entitled to participate.
In rejoinder filed by the petitioners reliance has been placed on Annexure-RR/1 pertaining to one Mahendra Gorchiya, whose (Downloaded on 12/07/2019 at 10:19:06 PM) (4 of 7) application was also 'cancelled by system', however, he has been permitted by the ARO to run on 14.06.2019 for rally pertaining to Jaipur area. Based on the said action of the respondents, it is submitted that once the respondents on account of applications cancelled by system have taken a particular view at Jaipur, the petitioners are also entitled for similar treatment and they cannot be discriminated.
Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the submissions made in the writ petition as well as rejoinder and again emphasized that the petitioners are entitled to be treated similar to Mahendra Gorchiya, who has been permitted to participate in the rally.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that from the material placed on record vide Annexure-R/3 as well as Annexure-R/4, it is apparent that the petitioners did not submit applications and once the applications were not submitted, the petitioners are not entitled to be accorded any permission to participate in the rally.
Submissions were made that so far as the case of Mahendra Gorchiya is concerned, indeed in the said case there was some technical glitch because of which his application was rejected and not only his application, similarly 10 more candidates' applications were rejected and therefore, in all 11 candidates were permitted to participate despite cancellation of application by system and therefore, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the same.
Submissions have also been made that as the respondents are required to maintain sanctity of the system, whereby all the candidates, who have incorrectly applied or failed to submit their application forms, their forms have been rejected, the petitioners (Downloaded on 12/07/2019 at 10:19:06 PM) (5 of 7) cannot be given a special treatment only because they have approached this Court and therefore, on that count, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The facts are not in dispute wherein pursuant to the scheduled army rally, the petitioners attempted to apply. The said aspect is clear from the document Annex.-R/4 filed by the respondents, wherein the user ID of the petitioners were generated at different times. However, the dispute pertains to as to whether the petitioners, in fact, were able to submit the applications. It is well known that during on-line filling up of the application forms, the candidates are required to undergo various stages / procedures wherein, after filling up the application forms, they have to first save the application and after saving the same, they are required to submit the same.
Once the applications are submitted, in certain cases, opportunity is also given to edit the said applications. It is also a fact that before any candidates attempt to file the application form, he has to generate his user ID.
From the material placed on record, it is apparent that though the petitioners generated their user IDs, the application forms appear to have not been submitted by the petitioners. As to whether the said non-submission happened on account of some technical glitch on part of the respondents or on account of mistake committed by the petitioners, for the said aspect, the petitioners have not been able to place on record anything. The respondents have produced Annexure-R/3, wherein it is claimed that on account of the initial omnibus rejection by indicating (Downloaded on 12/07/2019 at 10:19:06 PM) (6 of 7) 'cancelled by system', the reason for cancellation by system also started appearing & the reason indicated was that 'the application not submitted by the candidate'. Once, the system vide Annex.- R/3 generated the reason regarding the application having not been submitted by the candidate, there does not appear to be any reason to disbelieve the said document Annexure-R/3 produced by the respondents. The above aspect also stands fortified from the fact that in cases at Jaipur, the respondents on finding the rejection on account of technical glitch has permitted 11 candidates to appear in the rally despite rejection of their applications by the system, apparently there is no reason for this Court to come to a conclusion that the respondents for any extraneous reason would be denying the same treatment to the petitioners.
So far as the strong reliance placed by the petitioners in relation to the case of Mahendra Gorchiya is concerned, as noticed, once the respondents found that his application was rejected on account of technical glitch and they have permitted him to appear in the rally, the petitioners only on account of indication of similar rejection i.e. cancelled by system cannot take advantage and seek parity with said Mahendra Gorchiya.
Submissions were also made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been trying hard for long to get into the army and have also earlier attempted and once they have been able to clear the required run pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, they may be permitted to participate further in the recruitment.
As already noticed herein-before, the participation of the petitioners was indicated subject to the outcome of the writ (Downloaded on 12/07/2019 at 10:19:06 PM) (7 of 7) petition. Further as the petitioners have approached this Court at the eleventh hour, the interim orders only with a view to ensure that the petitioners are not prejudiced on account of such delay in approaching the Court were granted, but merely because the interim orders have been granted and the petitioners have succeeded in the run, are not reasons enough to hold in favour of the petitioners.
In view of the above, it is apparent that the petitioners had failed to submit the requisite applications as per the system provided by the respondents for valid applications and that the cancellation of petitioners' applications was not on account of technical glitch as submitted, no case for grant of any relief is made out in the writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 564, 567 & 568-Rmathur/-
(Downloaded on 12/07/2019 at 10:19:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)