Allowed

Ramsawroop Rar S/O Hariram Rar, v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2019CW/3963/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to correct an erroneous categorization of the petitioner as an Ex-Servicemen. The court directed the Respondent Commission to change the category to the petitioner's correct OBC status as the error affected no third-party rights.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to change petitioner's category from OBC Ex-Servicemen to OBC Non Creamy Layer within one week.

Ramsawroop Rar S/O Hariram Rar, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3963/2019

¶3

Ramsawroop Rar S/o Hariram Rar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Panchu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shiv Charan Gupta

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶9

Order

¶10

15/03/2019

¶11

The petitioner seeks change of his category from OBC

¶12

(Non creamy layer) Ex- Servicemen to that of OBC (Non creamy

¶13

layer) in respect of his application for the Rajasthan State and

¶14

Subordinate Services Combined Examination, 2018.

¶15

The case set up by the petitioner is that at the time

¶16

of filing of the online application form, he availed the services of

¶17

E-kiosk, and in the process of filing the said application, it

¶18

appears that aside of his applying in the OBC (Non creamy

¶19

layer) category, to which he belongs, the Ex-Servicemen

¶20

(2 of 7)

¶21

[CW-3963/2019]

¶22

category was also erroneously ticked by the person manning

¶23

the E-kiosk even though he was not instructed to so do.

¶24

Counsel submitted that no further information with regard to

¶25

PPO Number, as required from the applicant in the Ex-

¶26

Servicemen category was furnished by the petitioner in the online application form. Rather it was specifically stated against

¶27

the said column in the application form the information as to

¶28

PPO was not applicable (N A). The absence of intent to apply as

¶29

an Ex-servicemen was thus evident. Counsel submitted that the

¶30

admit card issued to the petitioner, also indicated him to be in

¶31

the OBC (Non Creamy Layer) category and not OBC- (Non-

¶32

creamy layer) Ex-servicemen category. The petitioner in the

¶33

circumstances even at the stage when he wrote the Preliminary

¶34

Examination was unaware of the inadvertent error in his online

¶35

application form. It has been submitted that it was only when

¶36

the result of the preliminary examination was declared on

¶37

23.10.2018 that the petitioner came to know that he had been

¶38

categorized in the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) Ex- Servicemen

¶39

(3 of 7)

¶40

[CW-3963/2019]

¶41

category candidate. In the circumstances an application for

¶42

rectification of the inadvertent error in the petitioner’s online

¶43

application form was made to the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and prayer for change of his

¶44

category from OBC (Non- creamy layer) (Ex-Servicemen) to OBC (Non creamy layer) simplicitor category was filed but rejected on 21.12.2018. It has been submitted that the

¶45

petitioner has secured cut off mark higher than the cut off marks in the OBC (Non creamy layer) category at the preliminary examination and would be entitled to write the main examination in that category—if category change sought by him

¶46

is in the facts of the case is allowed.

¶47

Mr.Shiv Charan Gupta appearing for the respondent-

¶48

RPSC submitted that the petitioner was given three

¶49

opportunities by the RPSC from time to time to make any

¶50

necessary rectification in respect of any error in the online

¶51

application form. The first opportunity was available with the petitioner under advertisement dated 2.4.2018 itself,

¶52

(4 of 7)

¶53

[CW-3963/2019]

¶54

whereunder within seven days of the filing of online application

¶55

any error therein could be rectified. That opportunity was not

¶56

availed by the petitioner. Subsequently another opportunity was furnished to all applicants to make the desired rectification in

¶57

the online application form with requisite fee within seven days

¶58

from the last date for receipt of applications. The petitioner yet

¶59

made no rectification application. RPSC, thereafter by a

¶60

corrigendum allowed a third opportunity to the applicants to rectify any error made in their online application form on

¶61

payment of fee. Yet again the petitioner did nothing to seek rectification in his online application form. It has been

¶62

submitted that the recklessness of the petitioner in failing to

¶63

avail the aforesaid three opportunities to rectify, a purportedly

¶64

inadvertent error in his online application form evidences his

¶65

lack of bonafides and hence category change sought ought not

¶66

to be permitted in the exercise of this Court’s equitable extraordinary jurisdiction.

Heard. Considered.

(5 of 7)

[CW-3963/2019]

It is indeed galling for this Court to repeatedly be

¶71

seized with cases of rectification of errors made in the online

¶72

application forms, including with regard to change of category. Yet it cannot be denied that the relief as prayed for in most

¶73

cases is equitable with no impact on third party rights and only

¶74

inconvenience to the examination authority. That equitable relief were warranted is inter-alia the jurisdiction of this Court in

¶75

a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the

¶76

case of Kavita Choudhary vs. The Registrar (Examination)

¶77

& Another DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017

¶78

decided on 1.11.2017 the DB has held that errors in the online

¶79

application form, if sought to be rectified before third party

¶80

rights are created, should ordinarily be cured, for it is human

¶81

error and divine to forgive.

¶82

In the facts of the instant case, the prayer of the

¶83

petitioner for change of his category from OBC (Ex-servicemen)

¶84

to OBC- Non creamy layer simplicitor cannot be held to be

¶85

lacking in bonafides. Delay in seeking rectification but on the

¶86

(6 of 7) [CW-3963/2019]

¶87

basis of unassailable material evidence, by itself cannot entail

¶88

lack of bonafides as submitted by Mr.Shiv Charan Gupta for

¶89

RPSC. In fact the petitioner’s online application form filed with the petition indicates that the petitioner had stated that he was

¶90

OBC (Non creamy layer) and but yet he had ticked of the Exservicemen column with a Yes. However in the following column in the application form requiring furnishing of PPO details of the

¶91

Ex-servicemen candidates, it was specifically answered by the petitioner as “NA” (Not applicable). The intent of the petitioner therefore was clearly to apply only in OBC (Non creamy layer)

¶92

category in the online application form and not additionally as an Ex-servicemen. The inadvertent error however appears to

¶93

have occurred, in the petitioner’s online application form showing him as an Ex-servicemen for reason of the mistake of

¶94

the person manning the E-kiosk from where the online application for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Examination, 2018 was submitted. That inadvertent

¶95

error cannot be allowed to prejudice the petitioner as the

¶96

(7 of 7)

¶97

[CW-3963/2019]

¶98

rectification prayed in the facts of the case affects no third party

¶99

rights.

¶100

The petition is accordingly allowed. The RPSC is

¶101

directed to change the petitioner’s category for the examination

¶102

in issue from OBC (Non creamy layer) Ex-servicemen to OBC

¶103

Non creamy layer. This be done within one week from receipt of

¶104

a certified copy of this order.

¶105

(ALOK SHARMA), J

¶106

Himanshu/14

Ramsawroop Rar S/O Hariram Rar, v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsawroop Rar S/O Hariram Rar, v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Narwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Hukum Singh Shekhawat Son of Late Shri Arjun Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Madho Singh S/O Shri Kalyan Singh Vs Rajhans Upadhyaya, Chairman Cum Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Sumer Verma S/O Shri Suresh Kumar Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Saini Son of Shri Sitaram Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Narayan Son of Shri Jamani Sahay Vs State of Rajasthan