ORDER :

I.A.No.04/2023:

For the reasons stated, the application seeking leave to place the letter dated 27.03.2023 on record, is allowed.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6529/2020:

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised a grievance that appointments have been given to persons less meritorious than him, but the same has been denied to him.

2. For the purpose of vying for the post of Junior Accountant in furtherance of recruitment notification dated 16.04.2015, the petitioner submitted his application form.

3. In the said application form, he indicated his two addresses; against head ‘present postal address’: Ambica Bhawan Front of Patrica Office, Old Bus Stand Jalore (Raj.) and against ‘permanent home address’: 913, Society Nagar, Pali.

4. The petitioner appeared in the selection process and when the result was declared (17.05.2018), he downloaded the result/mark-sheet and came to know that he has secured merit position No.2971. According to petitioner, on inquiry made by him the RPSC stated that he will be duly informed about further process.

5. When the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents only to learn that appointments have been given long back and his candidature has been cancelled as he did not turn up for document verification.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner having secured good merit position was waiting for document verification and posting and when he learnt that appointment orders have already been issued to many other candidates., he contacted the respondent-RPSC.

7. He asserted that the petitioner did not receive any intimation regarding the date of document verification, though he had given his address in the application form. Petitioner’s right to get appointment has been negated by the respondents conduct, argued Mr. Sankhla.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents had sent the intimation to the petitioner at his Pali address though he had clearly indicated that he has been residing in Jalore for the last five years and that is, his postal address.

9. According to the petitioner, as the respondents had sent the intimation about the date of document verification at a wrong address, he could not appear in such process. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that because of the respondents’ fault, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

10. As against this, the State has come with a specific reply that no candidate was informed by post about the date of document verification and the intimation regarding eligible candidates called for document verification was given by publishing the same on the website of the Treasury & Accounts Department.

11. Inviting Court’s attention towards para No.4 of the reply, learned counsel for the respondents argued that as the petitioner has come with wrong assertion of facts, the petition be dismissed on this count alone.

12. Mr. Nishant Bapna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State invited Court’s attention towards the documents, which the petitioner has produced, more particularly photocopies of the dispatch register and postal receipt (page No.75 and 76), and submitted that the postal receipt is of 31.01.2019, in which what was sent, was the rejection of communication dated 29.01.2019, whereby petitioner’s candidature was rejected. He submitted that merely because the letter was sent at petitioner’s Pali address, the petitioner cannot claim that the notice of appearing in the document verification was sent and that too at petitioner’s Pali address to contend that he was not informed or the intimation was not proper.

13. Mr. Sankhla, learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that for whatever reasons, if the petitioner has not appeared in the document verification, the Court should grant him indulgence and direct the respondents to carry out petitioner’s document verification given that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner ci