Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Ramesh Chand Meena – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1708 of 2021
Decided On : 17-02-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Power of High court to issue writs - Recruitment notification - Petitioner has challenged rejection of his candidature by respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission - educational qualification as provided in the advertisement provided for second class post graduate degree in concerned subject having minimum 48% marks with Shiksha Shastri/B.Ed – Held, reproduced part of corrigendum clearly shows that RPSC issued corrigendum and invited fresh applications in wake of increased reservation to Most Backward Classes (5%) and Economically Weaker Sections (10%) for which, State Government had even increased posts - Applications were invited afresh and candidates who had already submitted applications were permitted to edit their applications petitioner who had not cleared previous year of post graduation upto the cut-off date of advertisement, was not eligible to apply for the post at the time of issuance of first advertisement - Hence, he cannot take advantage of corrigendum, as condition No. 8 thereof poses a stumbling block in his way - Petitioner has failed to clear first bar of eligibility and thus, not eligible and entitled to be considered for the post he has applied for - Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Mehta, J.
1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged rejection of his candidature by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission").
2. The facts apropos are that the respondent-Commission issued a recruitment notification dated 29.03.2018 and invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of School Lecturer in various subjects.
3. The educational qualification as provided in the advertisement provided for second class post graduate degree in concerned subject having minimum 48% marks with Shiksha Shastri/B.Ed.
4. Following condition in relation to educational qualification was also given:-
| 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk laca/kh izko/kku | mDr inksa dh visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk ds vafre o”kZ eas lfEefyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr Hkh vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk] fdUrq mls vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr fyf[kr ijh{kk ls iwoZ 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxk] vU;Fkk og vik= gksxkA |
5. Further process in pursuance of the advertisement aforesaid remained in abeyance and on 06.01.2020, a corrigendum notice bearing No. 20/2019-20 came to be issued by the Commission whereby applications were again invited with the condition that candidates who have already filled application form need not furnish fresh application forms.
6. The opening part of the corrigendum dated 06.01.2020 aforesaid reads thus:-
7. Though petitioner had not earlier submitted his application form but pursuant to corrigendum aforesaid, submitted application form on 23.01.2020 for the post of School Lecturer - Subject (Sanskrit).
8. Petitioner completed his M.A. on 24.12.2020 and marksheet in this regard came to be issued to him.
9. Petitioner appeared in the competitive examination and was called for document verification. Whereafter, the Commission vide communication dated 22.01.2021, rejected his candidature stating that on the date of written examination, i.e., on 04.08.2020, the petitioner had not completed his post graduation - M.A. in Grammar.
10. Mr. Sangwa, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have illegally rejected petitioner's candidature on the ground that he has not completed his M.A. by the date of written examination.
11. He submitted that as per the marksheet (Annex. 2), petitioner has completed his first year of M.A. in July, 2019, and then immediately took admission in second year of M.A. and thus, was, eligible to apply for the post pursuant to corrigendum dated 06.01.2020.
12. It was also argued that the University in which the petitioner was pursuing his course was about to conduct examinations for final year from 26.03.2020; however, on account of imposition of lockdown and spread of COVID-19, examination could not be held and the same were ultimately held on 08.10.2020.
13. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it was not petitioner's fault that the respondent-University did not hold the examination in time. According
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
