AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner in the recruitment for the post
of Technical Helper despite the fact that the petitioner has secured higher marks than the cut-off marks in the category of OBC (Non-creamylayer).
It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that though the petitioner belongs to OBC (Non-creamylayer) category, by mistake he filled up online
application form in the category of Backward Caste â€" Creamylayer and thereafter when the result was declared and petitioner found out the said
mistake, approached the respondents, however, he is not being considered in his category.
Though no reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, it is inter alia indicated that the issue raised in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by judgment in Ram Kumar Sankhla v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14892/2018, decided on 25.10.2018.
It is submitted that the petitioner was well aware of his category and despite that took a chance of filling up his category in Backward Caste â€
Creamylayer as higher number of available posts in that category and only after declaration of the result, has sought change of his category, which is
not permissible.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in possession of requisite documents, however, committed mistake in filling up the
online application and, therefore, his category may be directed to be changed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
A bare look at the record indicates that the petitioner filled up the form in the category of Backward Caste â€" Creamylayer and admit card was
issued to the petitioner indicating the said status and annual family income above Rs.2,50,000/- was shown. Despite receiving of the said admit card
indicating the status of the petitioner as BCâ€" Creamylayer, petitioner appeared in the examination and did not approach the respondents for change
of category. It is only after the result has been declared that the petitioner has sought change of category.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the same situation pertaining to the same recruitment though for another post, came to the
following conclusion:-
 “It may be stated at the outset that the recruitment notification clearly postulates in condition No.3(iv) that the candidates were to carefully fill
and verify the details filled in the online application and that no change would be possible/entertained after clicking the “Final Submit†button. As
stated above, the petitioner filled in the application form on the last date of submitting online application form i.e., 11.06.2018. The fee for General
Category is prescribed at Rs.850/-whereas for the OBC category it is only Rs.550/-. The petitioner not only selected his category in the application
form as unreserved but he also consciously paid the fee for general category i.e., Rs.850/-. Thus, the contention advanced by Mr. Bhati that the
petitioner inadvertently selected the unreserved category while filling online application form is totally cooked up by way of afterthought and untenable.
The contention of Shri Bhansali that the petitioner intentionally chose to fill the application form in the unreserved general category because the
number of seats in the said category were significantly more than those reserved for the OBC is the only reason why the petitioner chose the said
course of action. The petitioner waited for the result and for the first time the application for change in category was moved on 28.08.2018 i.e., just
two days before the document verification. The petitioner seems to have realized at this stage that he would not be able to make the grade in the
unreserved general category and thus decided to change his category from unreserved to general category looking to his marks and as the cut off for
the backward classes was significantly lower. However, as mentioned above, change in category was specifically prohibited by the respondents in the
instructions stipulated in the recruitment notification itself. Furthermore, the contentions advanced by Shri Bhansali that last post (left vacant) in the
OBC category on account of non-joining by Shri Dinesh Kumar would go to the next meritorious candidate in the said category comes weight and
third party interest has definitely been created in favour of such candidate. Thus, the judgments in the cases of Kavita Choudhary (supra) and Kalu
Ram (supra) relied upon by Shri Bhati are totally distinguishable and the controversy is squarely covered by the Division Bench’s judgments in the
cases of Piyush Kaviya (supra), Neetu Harsh (supra) and Managing Director, AVVNL,, Ajmer (supra), relied upon by Shri Bhansali. The petitioner
cannot be permitted to make change in his category at this belated stage.
In the wake of above discussion, I find no merit in this writ petition which is rejected as such. The stay application is also dismissed.â€
The fact situation of the present case being similar to that of Ram Kumar Sankhla (supra), the judgment applies on all force. In view thereof, there is
no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.