Debarment based on incorrect assumptions and without affording an opportunity of hearing is unjust and must be quashed, emphasizing the importance of following the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3), whereby the petitioner has been debarred from appearing in the examinations conducted by the Commission permanently.

2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the petition that petitioner had appeared in the examinations-2013 for the post of Junior Accountant in the year 2015. The examination conducted was investigated by Special Operations Group (SOG) and a charge- sheet came to be filed in 2015 (Annex.2), wherein the investigation against the petitioner was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

3. On 3.2.2016, the respondent RPSC, without issuing any notice to the petitioner by observing that it was brought to the notice of the Commission that the petitioner has used unfair means and a charge-sheet has been filed, copy whereof has been forwarded to the RPSC, the Full Commission in its meeting dated 25.2.2016 has decided on debarred candidates like petitioner permanently and consequently, the petitioner is debarred permanently.

4. Whereafter, the SOG has filed supplementary charge-sheet in the year 2019, wherein also the investigation against the petitioner has been kept pending.

5. It is further indicated in the petition that since the passing of the order dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3), the petitioner filled up application forms pertaining to various examinations four times and every time on account of passing of the order dated 2.3.2016, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that so far, charge-sheet against the petitioner has not been filed and in the two charge-sheets only investigation against the petitioner has been shown as pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., despite passage of over 7 years, since the examinations were held in the year 2015.

7. Further submissions have been made that the order impugned dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3) was passed by indicating that a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, which is factually incorrect and that before passing of the order impugned, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and the nature of order which has been passed, is drastic in so far as the petitioner is concerned, inasmuch as he has been debarred forever.

8. Further submissions have been made that similar nature of orders, which were passed qua the other candidates have already been quashed and set aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Renu Gupta v. RPSC Ajmer : SBCWP No. 17128/2015 decided on 12/13.04.2017 at Jaipur Bench, which has been followed in SBCWP No.10921/2016 : Sharwan Kumar Bishnoi v. RPSC, Ajmer decided on 27.9.2022 and, therefore, the order impugned dated 2.3.2016 qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.

9. Submissions have also been made that petitioner has applied for the post of School Lecturer (School Education) and the examinations are scheduled to be held tomorrow and, therefore, RPSC be directed to issue admit-card to the petitioner and permit him to appear in the examination.

10. RPSC appeared on caveat, copy of the petition was supplied and reply to the petition has been filed.

11. Learned AG made submissions that irrespective of the fact that the claim made by the petitioner regarding similar nature matters having been decided by this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to relief as the petitioner has approached this Court with unexplained delay as the order was passed way back in the year 2016 and despite the fact that petitioner suffered rejection of his candidature four times in the past, he has chosen to question the validity of the order after passage of over 6 years and has filed the petition in the nick of moment, which petition deserves to be dismissed on that count alone.

12. Reliance has been placed on State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty : 2011 (3) SCC 436.

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