Anil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The matter comes up on an application moved for declaring the result.

Having heard the petitioner on merits and the counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court finds that the petitioner has come up before this Court stating that he had applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level first, 2018, but his fees could not be deposited for technical error although from the hard copy, it is revealed that the petitioner has submitted his application form and certificate of the e-mitra kiosk has also been placed on record which states that the petitioner attempted to submit his application form through the e-mitra kiosk on 18.04.2018 and had also deposited Rs.126/- as fees but due to technical error the print was not received.

Learned counsel submits that on account of error of the emitra kiosk, the petitioner would not be deprived of participation in the selection and accepting his prayer.

Learned counsel submits that on account of error of the emitra kiosk, the petitioner would not be deprived of participation in the selection and accepting his prayer.

Prima facie, this Court directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in the recruitment process involved by entertaining his application but his result has been kept in sealed cover vide order dated 23.07.2018.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have filed their reply and submits that the interim order passed by this Court was ex-parte. The last date for submitting the application form was 07.05.2018. The incident which the petitioner is mentioning is of 18.04.2018 and if he had learnt that his application ID was not there and fees is not deposited, he could have become more vigilant and applied from any kiosk or he could have approached this Court or before the respondent in time. However, nothing has been done at the time by the petitioner who has by his conduct abandoned candidature. For the purpose of selection the application was also downloaded by the petitioner on 10.06.2018 i.e. after one month of the last date. Thus, no indulgence could have been granted by this Court for allowing any candidature for selection process. Moreover, learned counsel submits that the fees has not been deposited at all. It is also not the case of the petitioner that fees was paid by him and deducted from his account.

Learned counsel further relied on judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.957/2017 decided on 05.12.2017 in the case of Bindu Kunwar Sisodiya Vs. Registrar General in support of his submission that in such circumstances this Court would not grant indulgence.

I have considered the submissions finds that the Division Bench in similar circumstances relating to selection being conducted by the High Court for LDC from has not accepted the conditions that if the fees is even deducted from the account of the concerned candidature and not deposited in the account of the respondents, no right is accrued for accepting their candidature by offline application. Relevant portion is quoted as under:-

"The appellants-petitioners pleaded ignorance about non-tracking the process due to their rural background and lack of facilities, which cannot help them as firstly, they should have been careful and watchful as the machinery which have been put in motion for conducting Lower Division Clerk Examination was dealing with a large number of candidates and, therefore, the relevant informations were being transmitted on their official website. Secondly, an opportunity was also granted by issuing a notification on 22.04.2017 permitting the candidate to pay the fee by 02.05.2017 who could not make the payment because of any reason and on account of bonafide and genuine difficulties. Once such names were projected on the official website, care should have been taken to avail the opportunity granted by depositing their fees to avail the opportunity in the present selection process.

Even in the depiction in the pictorial presentation, it is very clear that the moment fee is deposited in the account of the respondents then only the application ID is generated and the copy of the form can be printed.

It is also a condition precedent mentioned in the advertisement that the generation of the application ID will be the only proof of successful payment of the examination fee and that will be taken to be conclusive proof of the fact that candidate's online application has been properly registered. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the amount has been deposited from the account of the appellants is not convincing and the same is liable to be rejected.

As far as non-generation of the application ID in the present case is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the amount has not been deposited in the account of the respondent and, therefore, there is no fault on part of the respondent in rejecting the application/candidature of the appellants, more particularly despite the fact that one more opportunity on 22.04.2017 was allowed to the candidates similarly situated to the appellants to make the payment on or before 02.05.2017 was not availed by the appellants depicting a very casual and laid back attitude of the appellants.

Taking into consideration the fact that the process has already been completed and, therefore, if the appellants are permitted, it will entail into a hostile discrimination to those persons who were debarred on the same ground, but have not approached this Court, much less it will be an opening of pendora's box, if the appellants are permitted to appear in the selection process, at this stage, which stands concluded long back, we are not persuaded to interfere in the order of learned Single Bench.

In view of whatever discussed above, the order passed by learned Single Judge is upheld, the appeals, thus, have no force and the same are hereby dismissed."

In the circumstances taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment and also taking into consideration that the petitioner has been wholly reckless in not attempting to apply within time from another appropriate kiosk after his form was rejected from kiosk on 18.04.2018 up to the last date i.e. 07.05.2018, no relief can be given to the petitioner.

The writ petition is found to be without merits, dismissed.