Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Sri Ganganagar And Ors vs Seema

This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 12.3.15 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondent to consider her certificate of Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test ('RTET') Examination-2012 for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-I) has been allowed, while relying upon a coordinate Bench decision in the matter of 'Datar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.' (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9170/12), decided on 11.9.12.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-writ petitioner applied online for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-I). She appeared in the competitive examination and secured 149.11 marks. In the result declared, she was shown to have secured 85 marks in RTET Examination, whereas she had secured 91 marks in RTET Examination-2012.

As a matter of fact, in the application form though the marks obtained by the respondent in RTET Examination-2012, were correctly shown as 91, on account of inadvertent error, roll number of RTET Examination-2012, were wrongly entered as "6143666" instead of "4103586". However, in the result declared, the marks secured by the respondent in RTET Examination were shown as 85. The respondent made an application for rectification of the error crept in, but no avail.

According to the respondent, if 20% of the marks obtained by her in RTET-2012 are added to the marks obtained in the competitive examination, the total marks obtained by her comes to 168.11 whereas the cut-off marks declared for OBC Female Category were 154.45 marks and therefore, she is entitled to be appointed on the post of Teacher on the basis of her merit position.

The factual position was not disputed by the appellants herein before the learned Single Judge and accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition was allowed in light of decision of Datar Singh's case (supra) and accordingly, the appellants have been directed to extend one opportunity of fifteen days to the respondent to rectify the error/mistake/omission in the online application form. It is further directed that upon such rectification being effected, the petitioner shall be permitted to participate in selection process subject to her fulfilling the remaining eligibility criteria.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that in the Guidelines issued, it was specifically laid down that the incorrect information will lead to rejection of the application form and thus, the application preferred by the respondent for rectification of deliberate mistake has rightly not been entertained by the appellants. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the matter of 'Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Hitesh Kumhar & Anr.' [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.85/15], wherein the candidate had specifically mentioned in the application form that he belongs to non-TSP Category and sought rectification of the error claiming himself to be person belonging to TSP Category, the Court held that he having mentioned specified category, it is difficult to believe that it was a bonafide and inadvertent error.

As noticed above, in the instant case, factual position is not in dispute. A bare perusal of the application form submitted by the respondent reveals that she had specifically mentioned the marks obtained in RTET-2012 as 91, however, roll number of the examination mentioned therein does not tally with her RTET-2012 certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan. It is not clear that if the respondent had disclosed the marks obtained in RTET Examination as 91, why in the result sheet the marks obtained by her in RTET Examination were entered as 85 without there being any clarification in this regard brought on record. In any case, the mistake committed by the respondent herein, in entering the roll number incorrectly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, appears to be a bonafide and inadvertent error and thus, in the interest of justice, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in extending an opportunity to the respondent to rectify the error.

No case for interference by us in intra-court appeal jurisdiction is made out.

The special appeal is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.