Sunil Bhanwariya vs Registrar, Examination Cell, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Another

The writ-petitioner, a contender for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class in the Rajasthan Judicial Service (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Service"), being aggrieved by the rejection of his request for changing his category from OBC/SBC creamy-layer to OBC/SBC non-creamy layer, seeks to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for redress.

The run up of facts leading to the institution of the instant proceeding are that the respondent No. 1-Registrar, Examination Cell, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur had on 25.11.2013 issued an advertisement initiating the process for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class in the Service. Out of 187 posts advertised, 39 were earmarked for OBC candidates. The selection process as detailed in the advertisement was shown to be comprised of preliminary examination followed by main examination and interview. The number of candidates to be admitted to the main examination was determined to be 15 times the number of vacancies (category-wise) subject to rider that the candidates to qualify were to secure the minimum marks as prescribed and further, to meet the cut off marks. Apart from setting out the conditions of eligibility, the advertisement in clear terms required the candidates to traverse it (advertisement) in details and to furnish complete and correct informations as sought for. They were alerted thereby that in the event of incorrect and wrong particulars in their applications, the same would be rejected and they would not be allowed to participate in the examination; a consequence for which they would be solely responsible.

The writ-petitioner submitted his on-line application by indicating his category to be OBC/SBC creamy layer. He was thereafter being registered as such and was allowed to participate in the preliminary examination which was held on 23.3.2014. In the results declared on 8.4.2014, the writ-petitioner claims to have scored 75% marks. According to him, though the cut off marks for OBC category was 73%, he has been debarred from partaking the main examination as a OBC candidate as he had wrongly filled his category as OBC/SBC creamy layer instead of OBC/SBC non-creamy layer for which he has been construed to be a general category candidate. According to him, his name this did not appear in the list of candidates of OBC category. Situated thus, the writ-petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No. 1 alongwith all testimonials in endorsement of his claim of being a member of OBC/SBC non-creamy layer. The said respondent having by his communication (Annex. 10 to the writ petition) declined to accede to his request for change of category, he is before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner while admitting his (writ-petitioner) mistake in mentioning his category to be OBC/SBC creamy layer in his online application, has urged that he ought not to have been construed as a general category candidate for such trivial and unintentional mistake and that thus, the impugned decision is per se illegal, unreasonable, unfair and unjust and ought to be annulled. That the writ petitioner is really a member of the OBC/SBC non-creamy layer category has been sought to be demonstrated by referring to the certificates appended to the writ petition. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions of the Single Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9170/2012 Datar Singh V/s. State of Rajasthan & ors. (decided on 11.9.2012) and of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 875/2012 State of Rajasthan & anr. V/s. Datar Singh (decided on 31.7.2013).

The pleadings and the documents on record as well as the arguments advanced have received our due consideration.

Admittedly, the writ petitioner in his on-line application had mentioned his category as OBC/SBC creamy layer and his candidature was accordingly processed. He was registered as such and was allowed to participate in the preliminary examination. Per se therefore if he had been in the process construed as a general category candidate (OBC/SBC creamy layer), the respondents cannot be faulted with. Consequently, his non-inclusion in the list of candidates of OBC/SBC non-creamy layer category is unassailable in law. To reiterate, the advertisement had duly cautioned the candidates not only to be guardedly careful to ensure that correct and complete informations are furnished in their applications, it was clarified as well that after submission thereof, no request for alteration of any entry would be permitted. This assumes great significance in view of the post and the service involved and also the academic level as well as the degree of alertness and responsibility expected of the candidates therefor. Significantly, the request by the writ-petitioner for alteration of his category was made after the declaration of the results in the preliminary examination and non-inclusion of his name in the list of OBC/SBC non-creamy layer category. He having himself specified his category to be OBC/SBC creamy layer, his grievance that though he had scored higher marks than the cut off marks of the OBC/SBC non-creamy layer category thus, in our comprehension, is of no significance.

A Single Bench of this Court in Datar Singh (supra) was seised with the situation where vis-�-vis the posts of Teacher Gr. III under the Zila Parishads in the State, the candidates had committed errors in their on-line applications, the principle reason traceable therefor being weakness of the server. The contextual facts seemed to suggest that at the relevant point of time, the server used was very slow. The learned Single Judge being of the opinion that the errors were minor in nature and that the imputation that weakness of the server was not absolutely ill-founded, required the respondents to make necessary corrections in the applications of the candidates, who were found to be belonging to rural areas. This view was upheld by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the above referred batch of appeals.

In our estimate, not only the facts as obtain in the instant proceedings are distinctly different from those in Datar Singh (supra), to reiterate, the posts and the services involved are also incomparable. A candidate vying for recruitment to a post of the Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class in the Service is expected to be essentially attentive, careful, precise and focused more particularly in view of the repeated caveats in the advertisement emphasizing on the inflexible requirement of furnishing complete and correct informations bearing on the candidature and also the inevitable consequences of the rejection thereof otherwise. That no mistake or omission was to be allowed to be corrected or furnished was also mentioned in clear terms.

On a cumulative consideration of all aspects, we are thus of the firm view that the impugned decision is valid and wholly attuned to the solemnity and certainty of a public participatory process of the kind as involved. We do not see any cogent reason to interfere in the exercise of this Court''s writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition lacks in merit and is dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.