Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj Son Of Shri Jay Lal vs State Of Rajasthan … on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
[2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 375/2025
Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj Son Of Shri Jay Lal, Aged About 61
Years, Resident Of B2/301, Jeevan Ashray Lic Flats Plot No. 2,
Sector 6, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Food And
Consumer Affairs Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj, appellant
present in person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG
assisted by Ms. Sara Parveen,
Ms. Divya Rathore &
Mr. Ashutosh Udawat
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
14/05/2025
1. Heard on admission.
2. Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj, appellant appears in person.
3. The submission of the appellant is that the learned Single
Judge fell in grave error of law in not granting the relief, as sought
in the writ petition. According to him, even though the terms and
conditions of advertisement do not allow any
correction/modification in the preference, in appropriate cases, in
the interest of justice and that the petitioner/appellant was highly
meritorious, such correction ought to be permitted. He would also
submit that though application for correction in writing was
submitted on 03.02.2025, even before that he had been orally
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 09:54:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-375/2025]
requesting the higher authorities, at the helm of affairs, to allow
him to correct the application to change his preference. Denial of
change of preference has adversely affected the merits of the
selection. He submits that in other examinations for various posts
conducted by the Public Service Commission and in various
examination agencies, change of preference is usually permitted
at various stages of selection process and therefore, there was no
reason for the respondents to adopt a rigid rule of restricting
change of preference once it has been submitted. Reliance has
been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs Vs. Dr.
Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, AIR 2023 SC 1371 and Vashist
Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal
No.1 of 2024), decided on 02.01.2024.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on advance copy,
would submit that the appellant’s option to change preference was
not permissible in view of the terms and conditions of the
advertisement and the procedure of selection prescribed in the
advertisement. It is his submission that the appellant’s request for
change of preference was neither permissible nor justifiable as it
was not an inadvertent error and he is not a rustic person.
According to him, it was an afterthought after declaration of the
result of the written examination.
5. We are of the view that the relief sought by the petitioner in
the writ petition has rightly been rejected by the learned Single
Judge. Undeniably, the terms and conditions of the advertisement
clearly stated that the preference submitted by a candidate shall
not be allowed to be changed. The appellant had full notice and
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 09:54:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-375/2025]
knowledge that once he submits the application, preference will
not be allowed to be changed. If he had any grievance with such
rule, he could have challenged the validity of such terms and
conditions of the advertisement, but he chose to participate in the
process of selection. The submission that oral requests were made
to the authorities to allow the appellant to change his preference
is neither here nor there. There is no material on record to show
that any such request was made by the appellant prior to
03.02.2025.
6. It is vividly clear that the appellant chose to change his
preference only after declaration of the result of the written
examination. It is a matter of record that the advertisement was
issued on 09.11.2024; 20.12.2024 was the last date for filling the
application; written examination was held on 11.01.2025 and the
result was declared on 30.01.2025. It is only after declaration of
the result of the written examination that the appellant came out
with an application on 03.02.2025 seeking change of his
preference. Even thereafter, he did not file any petition but quietly
appeared in the interviews which were held on 18.02.2025 and
21.02.2025. On 07.03.2025, final result was declared. It is only
thereafter that the appellant filed the writ petition which came to
be ultimately dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Reliance placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye (supra)
and Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) is misconceived, both on
law as well as on facts. There is nothing in the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar
Limaye (supra) that a candidate would be entitled to change his
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 09:54:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-375/2025]
preference until final list is prepared. The aforesaid decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court deals with issues pertaining to challenge
to the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in the
Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of
recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation
and removal of President and Members of State Commission and
District Commission) Rules, 2020.
8. While deciding the issue in hand, in exercise of power
conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that for appointment of President
and Members of the State Commission and District Commission,
the appointment shall be made on the basis of performance in
written test consisting of two papers as per the scheme laid down
therein. That direction by itself, without anything more, cannot be
read as a mandate that the selection procedure must necessarily
contain a window for change/correction/modification with regard
to preference while submitting an application.
9. The other decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) does not apply in the case
of the appellant and the same is distinguishable on facts as well.
That, on facts, was a case where a person residing in a remote
village, had to take the services of a cyber cafe for submission of a
form and while filling the form, due to typographical mistake, the
date of birth was incorrectly recorded. It was observed that any
correction in the date of birth, later on, would not have any impact
on the merits of the selection. On those facts, their Lordships in
the Supreme Court allowed correction holding that the petitioner
therein could not be penalised for insignificant error which made
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 09:54:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-375/2025]
no difference in the ultimate result. It was highlighted that errors
of such kind which are inadvertent do not constitute
misrepresentation or willful suppression. It was held that an error
in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the
selection process and ought to be ignored. The aforesaid decision
does not come to the aid of the petitioner/appellant. The appellant
is not a rustic villager. He retired from a very high post in the
insurance services. The preference is not a typographical mistake
which can be said to be an act of inadvertent mistake. Every
candidate who has submitted his application is presumed to
exercise his preference carefully and thoughtfully and not by way
of mistake.
10. We would prefer to draw an inference that the change of
option was not actuated by disclosure of any inadvertent error but
was an afterthought. Had it been an inadvertent error, a person of
ordinary prudence would have immediately submitted an
application. The appellant however did not choose to do that. He
participated in the process of selection and it is only when the
result of written examination was declared that he poised himself
to a convenience that would help him in getting selected as a
Member of State Forum, whereas his preference was for
selection/appointment as Member of the District Forum.
11. For yet another weighty reason, as noticed by the learned
Single Judge, the prayer made by the appellant cannot be allowed.
It is well settled legal position, as enumerated in the case of Tej
Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No.2634/2013), that the process of selection and
terms and conditions cannot be allowed to be changed/altered
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 09:54:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-375/2025]
midway after the game has begun. The advertisement, in
unequivocal words, had clearly provided that preference once
submitted will not be allowed to be changed. Except in very
exceptional cases, one of which had been noted by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra),
if a candidate or candidates are allowed to change their
preference, the process of selection itself would be vitiated as it
would be behind the back of all such candidates who have
appeared in the examination process.
12. The submission that in some other examinations, there is a
window provided for making changes/corrections/modifications in
the application forms perhaps could be a ground to challenge as
soon as the advertisement was issued. This having not been done,
a candidate who has participated in the process of selection and
even appeared in the written examination also, cannot be allowed
to challenge the process of selection at such an advanced stage.
On facts, it is not a case of typographical mistake or inadvertent
mistake.
13. We have also been informed by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the appellant has been selected as the Member
of the District Forum.
14. In the result, no case for interference is made out. The
appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also
stands dismissed.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/37
(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 09:54:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link