Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Natwar Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Kishore Singh Shekhawat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13582 of 2021
Decided on : 06-02-2024
Rectification of Error - Departmental Candidate's Preference - Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Sub-ordinate Services - Rajasthan State and Sub-ordinate Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2018 - Rules of 1975, Rule 20(3) of the Rajasthan State and Sub-ordinate Services (Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 - The court allowed rectification of the error committed in the filling up of the application form, emphasizing that a bonafide mistake which does not prejudice a third party should be allowed to be cured. The petitioner, a Departmental Candidate (DC) in the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service, was denied appointment due to a technical error in the Detailed Application Form (DAP) where he selected the wrong Department of Preference. The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was contrary to the doctrine of legitimate expectation and meritocracy, and that the petitioner's rights as a meritorious candidate should not be prejudiced by a mere human error.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Departmental Candidate (DC) in the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service, was denied appointment on the post of Junior Commercial Taxes Officer due to a technical error in the Detailed Application Form (DAP) where he selected the wrong Department of Preference. The petitioner sought rectification of the error, emphasizing that it was a bonafide mistake and would not prejudice any third party rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was contrary to the doctrine of legitimate expectation and meritocracy, and that the petitioner's rights as a meritorious candidate should not be prejudiced by a mere human error. The court allowed rectification of the error, emphasizing that a bonafide mistake which does not prejudice a third party should be allowed to be cured.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of the petitioner's appointment on the post of Junior Commercial Taxes Officer due to a technical error in the Detailed Application Form (DAP) where he selected the wrong Department of Preference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a bonafide mistake which does not prejudice a third party should be allowed to be cured. The rejection of the petitioner's candidature was contrary to the doctrine of legitimate expectation and meritocracy, and the petitioner's rights as a meritorious candidate should not be prejudiced by a mere human error.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed in terms of the prayers made, including the grant of all consequential benefits within a period of three months. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
ORDER :
1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:-
B. To allow the petitioner to rectify the error committed in detailed application form under the section of “Preference of Department” and petitioner may be allowed to mark his preference as “Rajasthan Commercial Taxes sub-ordinate Services.
C. To direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner as granted to similarly situated candidates.
D. To pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit, just and necessary.”
2. The ineluctable and concise factual matrix of the instant petition, necessary for its just and efficacious disposal, is noted herein-under:-
2.1 That on 02.04.2018, the respondent-RPSC issued an advertisement for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2018.
2.2 That vide said advertisement, DC i.e. Departmental Candidates and ME i.e. Ministerial Employees, were eligible to apply only for the Sub-ordinate Services in their respective departments of employment. In essence, the ministerial employee of the concerned department could only apply in their respective department, where they were rendering their services.
2.3 That on 25.05.2018, the petitioner submitted his application form wherein, he clearly stated that he is working as a Ministerial Employee (ME) and hence, is eligible for the Departmental Candidate (DC) Quota.
2.4 That on 31.05.2019, the respondent-RPSC published the result for the preliminary round, wherein all the candidates were declared successful, irrespective of their parent department.
2.5 That the aforesaid action of the respondent-RPSC in selecting all the candidates irrespective of taking note of their parent department was challenged before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7737/2020 titled as Prem Singh Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.12.2020, the said petition was allowed in light of the undertaking furnished by the respondent-RPSC that the result of the preliminary examination would be revised and published after duly verifying the status of Departmental Candidate (DC) category of the applicants.
2.6 That on 12.03.2021, in compliance of the aforementioned order dated 16.12.2020, the respondent-RPSC, after due verification, published a merit list for the preliminary examination for the candidates in the Ex-Army, Departmental Candidate (DC) and Outstanding Sportsman categories. Resultantly, the petitioner got selected in the DC Category bearing Roll No. 816582.
2.7 That the petitioner, after getting selected in the main list, submitted his Detailed Application Form (DAP) wherein he specifically mentioned that he is applying under the DC Category whilst mentioning his department of previous employment being the Rajasthan Commercial Department. However, inadvertently, the petitioner clicked on the State Services Column as opposed to the Sub-ordinate Services Column.
2.8 That the petitioner was declared successful in the interview in the GE, DC and ME Category. He secured 287.25 marks and 7th Rank in the DC Category.
2.9 That on 25.08.2021, despite being successful, the respondent-RPSC did not call the petitioner for the medical examination, whilst calling the other candidates from the DC Category.
2.10 That being aggrieved, on 27.08.2021, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation before the respondent-RPSC. However, no heed was paid to the same.
2.11 That on 03.12.2021, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition, wherein this Court, vide interim order dated 03.12.2021, directed the respondent-RPSC to keep one post of Junior Commercial Taxes Officer vacant, till the final disposal of the instant petition.
2.12 That on 26.12.2021
A bonafide mistake which does not prejudice a third party should be allowed to be cured.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person holding lien on a permanent post of an organization falls within the definition of a Departmental Candidate and is eligible to appear....
Appointment discrepancies based on merit require adherence to statutory rules, and procedural delays must not harm candidates' rights to seniority and benefits.
Eligibility for recruitment must strictly adhere to the criteria set forth in the relevant rules and advertisements, particularly regarding experience requirements for departmental candidates.
The court affirmed that the principles of reservation must be applied as per the existing regulations, distinguishing between horizontal and vertical reservations.
Denial of Scheduled Caste status based on caste certificate format is unconstitutional under Article 14, violating rights protected by Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000.
Trivial errors in application forms should not disqualify candidates from public employment, especially when no malafide intent is present, balancing justice with administrative efficiency.
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
