Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Nilesh Bharti vs State Of Raj And Ors on 11 July, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH
AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10467 / 2017
Nilesh Bharti D/o Shri Vishram Yogi, by Caste Yogi, Aged About 23
Years, Resident of Village and Post Khora Malawali, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District- Alwar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Department
of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of
Rajasthan, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Services
Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Campus,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. K. Sharma For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 11/07/2017 Referring to an opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of writ applications lead case being SBCWP No.9170/2012:Datar Singh V. State of Raj. & Anr.; learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner by mistake committed error by indicating her Gender as 'Male' instead of 'Female'; owing to which her candidature has not been considered.
It is further contended that somewhat identical factual matrix, the Coordinate Bench of this Court referring to opinion in (2 of 4) [CW-10467/2017] earlier case of Savita Budinia V. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:SBCWP No.9062/2012, decided on 4th September, 2012, observed thus:
"The grievance of the petitioners is that most of the errors were committed by the computer operators at "E-Mitra Kiosk" or "Jansuvidha Kendra". It is also submitted that immediately after knowing about the error committed the petitioner approached to the respondents but of no consequence as the entries were recorded online. According to the petitioners at the time of submitting application form the server was very slow and, therefore, the computer operators at "E-Mitra Kiosk" or "Jansuvidha Kendra" were heavily overburdened and, therefore, the errors occurred. In any case due to minor wrong entries made in the application forms the candidature of the petitioners have not been considered with availability of correct facts mainly pertaining to their categorisation. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the mode of accepting applications online was introduced first time by the respondents and, therefore, some device regarding corrections of the errors should have been there.
From examination of record of each and every case I found that the errors crypted are quite minor but having far reaching effects including non consideration of the petitioners for appointment on the post concerned. The error so committed excludes them from consideration against the vacancies relating to their own category. It is also noticed that the petitioners after filing the application forms made representations to the respondents, but no correction was made as the application forms were accepted online.
This Court in Savita Budania v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCivil Writ Petition No.9062/2012, decided on 4.9.2012, while dealing with the similar controversy held as under:- "From perusal of the documents Annex.-5 and Annex.-6, it is apparent that the petitioner with quite diligence rectified the error committed by her. While availing examination also she mentioned her special category as an "Extra- ordinary Sportsman" in OMR sheets. The respondents, therefore, should have condoned the error and should have considered her candidature in the category of "Backward class (woman)" with the special category of "Outstanding Sportsman". The respondents while making recruitment may availassistance of technology but at the same time a human approach is also require to be kept in mind. The object of holding competitive test is to have best available hand and in this process merit should not be compromised just for the reason that the mechanical (3 of 4) [CW-10467/2017] procedure adopted do not support the manual exercise. In the cases, if the human error is rectified with all diligence at earliest possible, a condonation of error is desirable. The total ignorance of such rectification results into hardship and arbitrariness only. The non-consideration of the petitioner under her special category despite necessary correction at the earliest is highly unjust and arbitrary, as such is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
(Emphasis given) The cases in hand are also having the facts similar to the facts adjudicated in the case of Savita Budania (supra). The respondents introduced the online process for submission of application forms first time and that was through "E-Mitra Kiosk" and "Jansuvidha Kendra". The allegation of the petitioners regarding weakness of server is not absolutely ill-founded. It is also required to be kept in mind that most of the aspirants are belonging to rural areas and are coming from the lower or lower middle echelons of the society. Most of the aspirants are not having expertise with computer technology and as such at this initial stage of introduction of technology minor errors on their part are obvious and the same deserves condonation to ensure a fair selection process. The facts of the cases demand for having some space for correction in the wrong entries occurred while submitting online applications, but unfortunately that was not made available by the respondents.
Having considered the facts of the cases and objective conditions existing, I deem it appropriate to accept these petitions for writ. Accordingly, the same are allowed. The respondents are directed to make necessary corrections in the application forms submitted online by the petitioners and the persons alike on or before 30th September, 2012, if such persons point out the errors by submitting representations on or before 24th September, 2012. The candidature of such candidates is also required to be considered afresh after making necessary corrections in the application forms and if they stand in merit in their category, appointment be accorded to them, if otherwise found eligible.
Learned counsel further submits that for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied if the State-respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a time frame, which she is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.
(4 of 4) [CW-10467/2017] In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents ventilating her grievance.
In case, a representation is so addressed within the period aforesaid, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order, in the light of opinion in the case of Datar Singh (Supra), as expeditiously as possible; in accordance with law; however, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application as well as stay applications stand disposed off.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. Pcg/75