Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shashi Devi Gupta And Anr vs State (Panchyati Raj Dep)Ors on 24 August, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9511/2012 Smt Anita Gupta versus State of Rajasthan & anr 2.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7572/2012 Shashi Devi Gupta & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8803/2012 Shyam Sunder Panchal versus State of Rajasthan & ors 24.8.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Vinod Gupta Mr Neeraj Joshi for petitioners Mr Shantanu Kumawat for Mr SN Kumawat,AAG-for respondents BY THE COURT:
With the consent of the parties, all the three writ petitions, involving similar issue, are heard finally.
The matter pertains to selection to the post of Teacher Gr III Level-I and II and Teacher Gr III (Special Education). The only issue for consideration is as to whether candidate applied for the particular post can be allowed to change due to human error while submitting on-line application form.
It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that while applying for the posts, common application forms were sought for the post of Teacher Gr III (general) and Teacher Gr III (Special Education). Since application forms were to be filled on-line and petitioners are not well versed and expert thus help of others were taken to fill the same. Unfortunately, candidates who had applied for the post of Teacher Gr III, while filling on-line application forms, it was marked for Teacher (Special Education) and, same way, a candidate, who was to apply for the post of Teacher (Special Education), wrongly applied for the post of Teacher Gr III. Realising the mistake, immediately representations were made by the petitioners to consider their cases for the posts for which they are having requisite educational qualifications inasmuch as candidate who was to apply for the post of Teacher Gr III and wrongly mentioned it for the post of Teacher Gr III (Special Education) was not in possession of requisite qualification for the post of Teacher Gr III (Special Education). Same way, candidate eligible for the post of Teacher (Special Education) was not in possession of requisite qualification for the post of Teacher Gr III. Request aforesaid was not acceded to by the respondents, more so when one of the petitioners, mentioned the post correctly in OMR sheet.
In view of the aforesaid and looking to the human error, petitioners' candidature may be adjudged for the posts for which they are eligible and for which representations were made.
Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that petitioners were required to submit applications on-line for the posts for which they are eligible and eager to apply. Even if there was a human error, it cannot be to their benefit. Petitioners were called for submitting their documents but they failed to do so.
I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. The short controversy is regarding filling of application forms for the post of Teacher Gr III and Teacher Gr III (Special Education). Since two posts were simultaneously advertised and application form was also common, they committed bona fide error as the applications were filled on-line. Petitioners said to have taken help of others being not acquainted with on-line system. They made request to change their post and one of the petitioners even mentioned correct post while submitting OMR sheet. Looking to all these facts, respondents were expected to consider their representations. In any case, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances, respondents are directed to consider their representations by taking humanitarian approach inasmuch applications on-line are now filled for all the selections but is not very old system hence a candidate may not be acquainted with the system and has taken help of others for filling the application form.
Looking to the peculiar facts and request made by the petitioners to the respondents well within time, respondents are expected to take proper view in the matter within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If need be, decision aforesaid may be taken at the highest level sympathetically so that meritorious candidates may not be deprived to get appointment only on the ground of small human error and, at the same time, State should not loose meritorious candidates on that count. Consideration aforesaid may be made taking note of the observations made above.
With the aforesaid directions/ observations, all the writ petitions so as the stay applications stand disposed of.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW