The court upheld the validity of appointments made to candidates who appeared for the interview, emphasizing that failure to participate negates claims based on merit.

ORDER :

SUDESH BANSAL, J.

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner at length so also the Dy. Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department of Secondary Education and perused the record carefully.

2. Matter pertains to claim of petitioner for appointment on the post of PTI Grade-III in District Jalore pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.07.2003, alleging herself to be higher in merit than private respondent No.4, who has been given appointment.

3. The factual matrix, in nutshell as culled out from the record is that:

3.1 In District Jalore, 10 posts of PTI Grade-III (Male) were notified vide advertisement dated 28.07.2003. Out of such 10 posts, on 2 posts, female candidates were to be recruited. In order to fill 2 posts of PTI Grade-III from the female candidates, a list of 10 female candidates was prepared by the respondents according to their merit. The details of respective merit of such 10 female candidates have been made available on record by the petitioner in the form of Schedule-A, appended with the writ petition.

3.2 It is noteworthy herein that this is an undisputed and admitted case by the petitioner as well as by the respondents that both the posts of PTI Grade-III have been filled by the respondents department by granting to Smt. Pushpanjali Choudhary (74.63 marks), and Smt. Prem Lata Vishnoi (74.36 marks) and both appointees have joined on their respective posts way back on 06.04.2004. One of the appointee, Smt. Prem Lata Vishnoi has been impleaded as party respondent No.4 herein though Smt. Pushpanjali Choudhary has not been impleaded as party respondent in the present writ petition.

3.3 As per merit of 10 selected female candidates, petitioner secured 75.83 marks, it means higher than the marks of both appointees. Hence, petitioner put-forth her claim that she is higher in merit than the two appointees named herein-above and is entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of PTI Grade-III as much as entitled to get appointment with all the consequential benefits.

3.4 The case of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition and argued by the counsel for the writ petitioner before this Court is that the date for interview/document verification of 10 shortlisted female candidates was scheduled by respondents-department on 29.03.2004 at Jalore, but the information of same sent to petitioner through postal telegram was delivered upon the petitioner on 31.03.2004 and written information was delivered on next date i.e. 01.04.2004. Hence, due to not receiving the information prior to the scheduled date of interview, petitioner could not appear on 29.03.2004 and there is no fault on the part of petitioner. Since against 2 vacancies, respondents have given appointment to other female candidates, who are lesser in merit than petitioner, therefore, respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment and to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of PTI Grade-III as per her merit with all consequential benefits. The copies of delivery of the postal telegram and the written information have been placed on record as Annexures-6 & 7 respectively with the writ petition.

4. Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner has strongly placed reliance upon the final order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 601/2005 titled as Balbir Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dealing with the identical issue of non-delivery of telegram/written information of interview/document verification to the appellant-Balbir Singh that too in respect of the same advertisement dated 28.07.2003 for the post of PTI Grade-III itself, for district Alwar, wherein the Division Bench observed that there is no fault of appellant for his non-appearance in the interview/document verification process on the scheduled date since he was not duly informed by the respondents. For ready reference relevant portion of the judgment delivered b