Dismissed

Priyanka Goswami D/O Shri Surendra Goswami v. Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2023CW/9657/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment in a general divorcee category exam, claiming exclusion was arbitrary as she allegedly met cutoff marks. The Court held that failure to secure minimum qualifying marks in the efficiency test disqualified the applicant, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is not entitled to any relief; petition dismissed.

Priyanka Goswami D/O Shri Surendra Goswami… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:15332-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9657/2023

¶4

Priyanka Goswami D/o Shri Surendra Goswami, Aged About 40 Years, Resident of 12/103, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302017.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

		Versus
1.	Rajasthan Jodhpur.	High Court, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar General,
2.	Registrar	(Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur,
	Rajasthan.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi, Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shaliesh Prakash Sharma, Advocate

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment / Order

¶10

26/07/2023

¶11

Heard.

¶12

This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by non inclusion of the petitioner in the provisional select list dated 11.06.2023 and non consideration of petitioner’s case for appointment to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Junior Assistant/Clerk Grade-II in general divorcee category.

¶13

According to the pleadings of the petitioner, the petitioner obtained 223 marks out of 300 marks in the written test. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared in the typing test and performed her best. According to self-evaluation, the petitioner was entitled to 32 marks in the Speed Test of Hindi and English for which 22.50 minimum qualifying marks were prescribed and also entitled to award of 34 marks in efficiency test for which minimum qualifying marks were 22.50 prescribed in the advertisement. However, when the

¶14

[2023:RJ-JP:15332-DB]

¶15

[CW-9657/2023]

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

result was declared, petitioner was shocked to see that the petitioner’s name did not appear in the select list. According to result, the cut-off marks for general divorcee category is 209.35 whereas petitioner was awarded 223 marks excluding typing and efficiency test. Exclusion of the petitioner from the process of selection is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

¶18

Respondents have filed an affidavit in the present case, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner appeared in the process of selection. She was subjected to written test, efficiency test and typing test. In para 3 of the affidavit, it has been categorically averred that the petitioner could obtain only 21 marks in the efficiency test whereas minimum qualifying marks for efficiency was 22.50.

¶19

That much of disclosure by way of affidavit by the respondent nonsuits the petitioner. Since the petitioner has failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in one of the stages of the process of selection, the petitioner cannot be heard saying that in any case, total of marks obtained in various stages of examination should be made a basis for selection.

¶20

Though learned counsel for the petitioner sought to dispute the correctness of the process of selection stating that there are many other instances, we are not inclined to go into all such allegations. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any relief.

¶21

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶22

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶23

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶24

Mohita /121

Priyanka Goswami D/O Shri Surendra Goswami v. Rajasthan High Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Goswami D/O Shri Surendra Goswami v. Rajasthan High Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri Seeta Ram Khandelwal Vs Shri Bhaskar a. Sawant, Ias, Principal Secretary

Prem Narain Gupta Son of Shri Hari Narain Gupta Vs Jaipur Nagar Nigam

Union of India Vs Manish Jhalani S/O Shri Ravindra Jhalani

Hemraj S/O Shri Ram Narayan Vs Shri Yag Mtira Singh Dev Commissioner Jaipur Municipal Corporation

Rajendra Sharma S/O Shri Shyam Prakash Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamta Prasad Mishra S/O Shri Late Muneshwar Mishra, Vs Sh. Pawan Kumar Goyal