Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chaukha Ram vs The Secretary on 20 September, 2022
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13921/2022
Chaukha Ram S/o Shri Mana Ram, aged about 21 Years,
Resident of Ratariya, Tehsil Bhaniyana, Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajya
Krish Prabandh Sansthan, Durgapura, Jaipur.
2. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Secondary
Education Department, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jamwant Gurjar.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 20/09/2022 Heard.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the corrigendum dated 30.06.2022 (Annex.5) issued by the Selection Board pursuant to advertisement for the post of Basic Computer Instructor and Senior Computer Instructor dated 01.02.2022 (Annex.1).
Submissions have been made that the advertisement indicated the procedure for written examination and two papers were to be held and nowhere it was indicated that the candidates were required to obtain minimum marks in each paper. The petitioner attempted the examination and obtained 69.0236 marks (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:36:48 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-13921/2022] in Paper-I and 33.3333 marks in Paper-II, total 102.3569 marks, however, despite the fact that the cutoff in petitioner's category were 80 only, the petitioner was not called for document verification.
Submissions have been made that after the written examination was held, the impugned corrigendum dated 30.06.2022 (Annex.5) was issued based on Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Education (State & Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021 (Amended) ('Rules of 2021'), indicating that candidates would be required to obtain minimum of 40% marks in each of the papers; and as the petitioner obtained 33.3333 marks only in Paper-II, he has been failed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in issuing the corrigendum dated 30.06.2022, amounts to changing the rules of game after the game is over, inasmuch as the examinations were held on 18.06.2022 and the corrigendum has been issued on 30.06.2022. It is claimed that if the petitioner was aware of the said requirement, he would have attempted the second paper appropriately and though the petitioner has obtained far more marks than the cutoff, he has been deprived of the selection, which is not justified.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
It is true that the requisite about obtaining minimum 40% marks in each paper was not indicated in the advertisement, however, the said stipulation is part of Rule 28 of the Rules of 2021, which provision is specific and merely because the same was not indicated in the advertisement, by itself cannot be given a go bye by the respondent- Selection Board. (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:36:48 AM)
(3 of 3) [CW-13921/2022] The petitioner based on the omission in the advertisement contrary to the Rules cannot claim estopple against the Board, qua the said omission.
In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out in the petition, the same is therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 133-DJ/-
(Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:36:48 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)