Dismissed

Pooja Rajpurohit v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer

Rajasthan HC1 Dec 2021SAW/323/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal by an appellant who was rejected from an Assistant Statistical Officer post because she could not prove TSP area residency. The court distinguished the case from cited precedents, holding the appellant bound by her choice of category in the advertisement. The appeal against the Single Judge's order failed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the Single Judge rejecting the writ petition was allowed.

Pooja Rajpurohit Vs Rajasthan Public Service… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 323/2021

¶3

Pooja Rajpurohit D/o Ashok Kumar Rajpurohit, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan Through Secretary.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Moti Singh.

¶9

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶10

Order

¶11

01/12/2021

¶12

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2394/2020.

¶13

The facts are that the appellant applied for the post of Assistant Statistical Officer pursuant in response to the advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 28.03.2018. A candidate was required to make a choice whether he/she would apply for the TSP area posts or Non-TSP area posts. The appellant made a choice for the TSP area. She was required to produce a certificate of bona fide resident of Dungarpur. However, upon verification it was found that she was not entitled for TSP area consideration and her candidature was rejected. At that stage, she raised the issue of being considered for the Non-TSP area posts. Since the authorities did not accept this, she approached before the learned Single Judge, who

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[SAW-323/2021]

¶16

rejected the petition on the ground that the advertisement clearly provided that for the TSP area only the residents of TSP area should apply and if residents of other areas, their applications shall be treated as invalid. The candidates shall have to produce certificate of residents of TSP area whenever asked for. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the appellant having applied for the post in the TSP area cannot plead ignorance of the fact that she was not a bona fide resident of the said area. It was, therefore, too late for her to change her category, since she applied in response to the advertisement No.5 which was meant for TSP area posts.

¶17

In our view, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error. The candidature of the appellant was rejected since she could not establish her claim belonging to TSP area. Reliance on the decision in the case of Manish Kumar Nagda and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8529/2018, decided on 23.07.2018) is absolutely misplaced. It was a case in which the State authorities had started the recruitment process for the TSP area as well as Non-TSP area posts. At that stage, the Central Government issued a notification on 19.05.2018 declaring certain additional areas as Tribal Sub Plan Area. This would expand the zone of TSP areas. The residents of this area, therefore, sought permission to apply for the posts for TSP areas. This was denied. Upon which the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 23.07.2018 allowed category change by extending the benefit of notification dated 19.05.2018 issued by the Central Government.

¶18

Reliance was also placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Suman Inaniyan Vs. State of

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

[SAW-323/2021]

¶21

Rajasthan and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4465/2020 decided on 25.11.2020) in which the petitioner who had applied for recruitment as OBC non-creamy layer had made error in uploading her marks in the relevant examination. This was allowed to be corrected. Again the facts of the present case are different.

¶22

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶23

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶24

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶25

22-a.asopa/-

Pooja Rajpurohit v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Rajpurohit v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer

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

The State of Rajasthan Vs Dhanna Ram

State of Rajasthan Vs Jamna Lal Jat

State of Rajasthan Vs Fatima Bi Masuri

Nitesh Sharma Vs the Union of India

Navneet Soni Vs State and Ors.

Safi Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan