JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. The respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereafter referred to as "Commission") had published two separate recruitment notifications dated 28.03.2018-One for Non-TSP area being advertisement No. 04//A.S.O./2017-18 (hereinafter referred to as "advertisement No. 04") and another for TSP area being advertisement No. 05//A.S.O./TSP/2017-18 (hereinafter referred to as "advertisement No. 05").

2. It is noteworthy that above referred notifications issued by the Commission were with a view to fill up 201 posts of Non-TSP area while 24 posts of TSP area.

3. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Statistical Officer under advertisement No. 05, meant for TSP area and submitted her application form on 12.05.2018.

4. Petitioner cleared the written test in the result declared on 03.01.2020 and came to receive a letter dated 27.01.2020, inviting her for counselling on 10.02.2020. When the petitioner appeared for counselling, the Commission found that she did not possess Special Bonafide Resident Certificate, commonly known as TSP certificate. Vide a communication dated 10.02.2020, the petitioner was required to produce TSP certificate within five days, failing which it was stated that her candidature would be rejected.

5. Anticipating rejection of her candidature, petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:-

"(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner while taking into account specially that the petitioner is "Non TSP candidate instead of "TSP Candidate and thereafter, if the candidature of the petitioner is found as per merit, the petitioner may be called for further selection process and allow participating in the final selection list.

(ii) That the communication issued by the respondent dated 10.02.2020 (Annexure-6) may kindly be quashed and further respondent may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner against the Advertisement no. 4/Exam/A.S.O./2017-18 dated 28.03.2018 (Annexure-2) as Non TSP Candidate.

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) the petition may kindly be allowed the cost of this writ petition."

6. The petitioner has approached this Court with a case that she is otherwise a meritorious candidate and her marks are more than the cut-off marks of her category for non-TSP area, thus, her candidature be considered under advertisement No. 04, meant for Non-TSP area candidates.

7. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner originally is/was a resident of district Pali, but had migrated to district Dungarpur in the year 1982 and thus, she was under a bonafide belief that she is a resident of TSP area.

8. According to the petitioner, since she was a bonafide resident of Dungarpur (for which she was having a certificate), she was entitled to be considered under the notification No. 05, meant for TSP area candidates.

9. It is argued by Mr. Moti Singh that rejection of petitioner's candidature, per se, because of the fact that she failed to submit TSP certificate, is illegal and the respondents ought to have considered her candidature for the posts advertised for Non-TSP area.

10. In other words, petitioner's case is that she should be permitted to migrate to advertisement No. 04.

11. In support of the contention aforesaid, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in case of Manish Kumar Nagda & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 8529/2018) more particularly para No. 30 of the said judgment and submitted that as this Court had permitted all the candidates to move to advertisement No. 02/2018, meant for TSP area, the petitioner should also be permitted to switch to advertisement No. 04, meant for Non-TSP area.

12. Learned counsel further relied upon judgment of this Court rendered in