Disposed

Om Prakash Merotha v. State Education Dep Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2018CW/5660/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed petitioner to submit representation within a week regarding OBC Non-Creamy Layer status. Court directed respondents to decide based on pre-existing Division Bench precedent allowing cure for bonafide mistakes not affecting third parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to submit representation within one week; respondents directed to decide based on existing Division Bench precedent within two weeks.

Om Prakash Merotha Vs State Education Dep… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 5660/2018

¶3

Om Prakash Merotha

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

		Versus
State (Education Dep	) Anr		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Prashant Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	S. K. Gupta, AAG

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶7

Order

¶8

15/03/2018

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief prayed for in the instant writ application ought to have been accorded by the respondents in the backdrop of adjudication by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. : D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1700/2017, decided on 1^st November, 2017, observing thus:

¶10

“6. Vide impugned decision dated 27.10.2017 the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that being an educated person, the appellant ought to have been careful.

¶11

To err is human. We do not note the second part: To forgive is divine.

¶12

Mistakes can be of two kinds. First kind would be where nobody is affected by a mistake. The second is where a third party is affected by a mistake.

¶13

The difference in the two mistakes would be that whereas rectification of the first would cause no prejudice, rectification of the second would cause a prejudice.

¶14

We find in the decisions dated 31.07.2013 in D.B.S.A.W No.875/2012, State of Rajasthan Vs. Datar Singh, dated 11.10.2017 in S.B.C.W.P No.7159/2017, Dinesh Kumar

¶15

(2 of 3) [CW-5660/2018]

¶16

Mahawar Vs. RPSC & Ors., dated 27.01.2017 in S.B.C.W.P No.906/2017, Shimala Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dated 24.11.2016 in S.B.C.W.P No.15654/2016, Sapana Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P.(Civil) No.3721/2017, Arkshit Kapoor Vs. Union of India & Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P. (Civil) No.11642/2016, Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors., passed by this Court and the Delhi High Court, the consistent view taken is that a bonafide mistake which does not affect a third party right should be allowed to be cured.

¶17

We dispose of the appeal directing that the appellant be treated as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate and we permit her to participate in the further selection process. Needless to state the respondents would be entitled to verify the certificate submitted by the appellant.

¶18

Being informed that the type test is scheduled for 02.11.2017 we direct that the appellant be issued an Admit Card entitling her to take the type test tomorrow i.e. 02.11.2017. The Admit Card be issued today itself.

¶19

The appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 and allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recruitment process has not been finalized as yet, and therefore, there is no question of third party rights being accrued.

¶21

In view of the above, the petitioner is allowed to address a comprehensive representation within a week hereinafter.

¶22

In case, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in the backdrop of adjudication by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita Choudhary (supra).

¶23

In case, the claim of the petitioner is found covered by adjudication aforesaid; necessary relief be accorded to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

In case, the claim is not found covered; the respondents would make a reasoned and speaking order.

¶25

(3 of 3) [CW-5660/2018] This exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.

¶26

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶27

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶28

Pcg/235

Om Prakash Merotha v. State Education Dep Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Merotha v. State Education Dep Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Dayal and Another Vs Ram Bilas

Subhash Lalwani and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Arti Jain Vs D B Gupta and Ors.

Kailash and Ors. Vs Nandram

Gopal Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Namdev Vs State of Raj and Ors.