Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vipul Jakhar vs Rajasthan High Court ... on 8 October, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:41277-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12816/2024
Vipul Jakhar S/o Shri Ram Jeevan Jakhar, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of 23/c/94, Choupasani Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar
General, New High Court Building Jhalamand, Jodhpur
(Raj.).
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, High
Court Building, Jhalamand, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Bhadu for
Mr. Yashpal Khileree
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 08/10/2024 Per, Kuldeep Mathur, J.
By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the record of the case may kindly be called for and this petition for writ may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order and directions in the nature thereof thereby:-
a) the action of the respondents while excluding the petitioner from the further process of evaluation for recruitment to the Cadre of Civil Judge in the garb of Note No.7 of the Notice dated 15.07.2024 (Annex.7) and placing his roll number in the list of 361 candidates (who were excluded from the process of evaluation), may kindly be declared per se illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and so also in clear violation of the provisions of Rajasthan Judicial (Downloaded on 09/10/2024 at 09:54:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:41277-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-12816/2024] Services Rules, 2010 and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner.
b) the respondents may kindly be directed to evaluate the OMR-Sheet of the petitioner and if the petitioner comes in the cut off of General/ OBC-NCL category, then his candidature may kindly be considered and permitted the petitioner for appearing in Main Examination as per notice dated 23.07.2024 Annex,9;
c) the petitioner be declared qualified and eligible for consideration in the further selection process i.e. Main Examination for recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge pursuant to advertisement dated 09.04.2024 (Annex.1) with all consequential benefits;
d) any other writ, order, directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; AND
a) cost of this writ petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination held on 15.07.2024 for appointment to the post of Civil Judge in response to the advertisement dated 09.04.2024. The respondents on 23.06.2024 declared the result of the preliminary examination. However, the result of the petitioner was not declared as he did not follow the instructions given in the OMR-Sheets and has darkened the bubble '0' in place of '1' below the second letter of his Role No.912081.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that main examination for the post of Civil Judge has already been conducted and result, thereof, has also been published. It was further submitted that the controversy involved in the matter has already been set to rest by this Court in the case of "Priyanka Tambole v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.":
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12479/2024 decided on 05.08.2024.(Downloaded on 09/10/2024 at 09:54:15 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41277-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-12816/2024]
4. The operative portion of the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by this Court in the case of "Priyanka Tambole" (supra) is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"7. This is admitted at the Bar that the process of evaluation of OMR sheet is completely computerized and no manual interference is permissible. The petitioner herself has stated in the petition that she made a mistake insofar as darkening of the booklet series is concerned, though she has written the correct series in alphabet. Insofar as the decision in "Vashist Narayan Kumar" is concerned, the said decision was rendered in a different fact situation and it was not a case where the applicant had made a mistake in darkening the bubble in the OMR sheet. We have this also in our mind that in any examination process the decision of the examining body/academic regulator should not be interfered by this Courts in exercise of jurisdictional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the decision so taken was applied uniformly to all the candidates."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to refute the fact that this Court in the case of Priyanka Tambole has already decided a controversy akin to the controversy involved in the present case.
6. In view of aforequoted precedent law, we find no fault in the action of the respondents in withholding the result of the petitioner due to the default committed by him while filling the OMR-Sheets. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
7. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J 142-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 09/10/2024 at 09:54:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)