The main legal point established in the judgment is that despite initial rejection due to the lack of mark-sheet indicating the study of a specific subject, the court may require indulgence and direct the consideration of additional evidence, such as mark-sheets from previous years, if the petitioner is found to be eligible and in merit.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the list dated 31.10.2022 (Annex.P/5), whereby, though the petitioner has marks higher than the cut-off, her name has not been reflected in the said list.

2. In response to the petition it has been indicated that the petitioner has not produced the mark-sheet of first year graduation where she had studied the computer application subject and only the final year mark-sheet was produced and, therefore, for lack of requisite computer qualification, she was held ineligible.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to order in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16316/2022, decided on 10.11.2022, wherein, in similar circumstances the Court directed the respondents to take into consideration the mark-sheets of first year & second year of graduation by the petitioner therein and prayed that the petitioner may be accorded similar indulgence.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that pursuant to the document verification, all the posts have been filled-up and, therefore, on that count also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner inter alia indicating that out of 442 posts, 408 persons have been accorded appointment and for 28 persons, the District Establishment Committee is yet to take decision and, therefore, those 28 posts are lying vacant.

6. Further submissions have been made that one Vijay Khoja was accorded appointment at Sr. No.47, however, he has already joined at Zila Parishad, Nagaur and, therefore, even the said post is also vacant.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to make submissions that as far as the said post of Vijay Khoja is concerned, the same would have to be taken into consideration in next recruitment and cannot be filled-up now at this stage.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. In the case of Hari Ram (supra), this Court inter alia came to the following conclusion:-

"I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The facts are not in dispute, wherein on account of petitioner failing to produce the mark-sheets of graduation for all the three years and producing mark- sheet of the final year only, wherein subject-computer application was not reflected, his candidature has been rejected, holding him ineligible.

The material now produced alongwith the writ petition i.e. mark-sheets of first year and second year, reflect that the petitioner has studied subject-computer application in first year, which has been held as sufficient in the case of Heera Lal Jat (supra).

Further, the claim made that after document verification, the petitioner has produced the mark- sheets of first year and second year shows that petitioner had not produced the same at the time of document verification.

In view of the circumstances, wherein though rejection of the petitioner's candidature by the respondents for lack of mark-sheet indicating as having studied subject-computer application, cannot be faulted, however, in the circumstances of the case, wherein the petitioner only for lack of knowledge regarding producing all the mark-sheets is being deprived of getting appointment though he falls in merit, requires indulgence and, therefore, the respondents are directed to take into consideration the mark-sheets of first year and second year of graduation produced by the petitioner, which shall now be reproduced by the petitioner with the respondents by tomorrow i.e. 11.11.2022.

On finding the said mark-sheets in order and in case, the petitioner is otherwise eligible and falls in merit, the respondents would do the needful i.e. recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment altering the list already send to the competent authority for the purpose.

With the above direc