1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1027/2007. (Vimla Devi Vs. RPSC & Anr.) Date of Order ::3rd September 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Joshi, for the respondent-RPSC. ... While filing this petition for writ on 23.02.2007 the petitioner stated her grievance in the manner that being eligible to be appointed as Teacher Gr.III, she submitted her application form No.229619 on 11.12.2006 to the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission ('RPSC') in response to its advertisement inviting applications for ''Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Examinations, 2006''; however, according to the petitioner, though her application form was duly received by RPSC on 11.12.2006 (receipt Annex.4) and the respondent was going to conduct examination on 25.02.2007, till filing of this writ petition, she did not receive admission card and roll number; and that even when her brother visited the office of RPSC on 15.02.2007, he did not receive any satisfactory response and was merely informed that admission card and roll numbers have already been dispatched to all the candidates by post. The petitioner submitted that she could not be denied her chance to take the examination and has no alternative left except to approach this 2 Court. Considering grievance of the petitioner, this Court on the very date of filing of the writ petition issued notices; and while appearance was put on behalf of the respondent-RPSC and this Court granted four weeks' time for filing reply, the petitioner was permitted provisionally to appear in the examination scheduled to be held on 25.02.2007. The petitioner, then, by filing an application (IA No.2588/2007) on 11.07.2007 submitted that she was allowed to appear in the examination in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court and the respondent-RPSC though has declared result of the said examination on 24.04.2007, but has withheld her result on the ground that she appeared in the examination provisionally under the orders of this Court; and that the RPSC is going to hold counseling of the selected candidates and shall soon issue orders in their favour. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for directions to the RPSC to declare her result. On 22.08.2007, again time was granted to the respondents to file reply with the directions to the RPSC to keep available result of the petitioner on the next date of hearing. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit stating that she submitted her application form in due 3 time under receipt dated 11.12.2006; and has placed on record several similar receipts in relation to other candidates bearing only the seal, as affixed on the receipt in relation to her form, with nobody putting signatures thereat. On 29.08.2007, learned counsel for the RPSC has placed on record the marks-statement of the petitioner showing that she has obtained 86.67 marks. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the material available on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the petition deserves to succeed. It has been suggested during the course of arguments on behalf of the RPSC that the receipt (Annex.4) does not bear any signatures and cannot be taken in proof of deposit of the application form. The stand is untenable. It is not the case of RPSC that the seal on the receipt (Annex.4) is not its receipt seal. From the documents collectively placed as Annexure-6 with additional affidavit, it appears that the respondent-RPSC has adopted the procedure of putting seals in token of receipt and no any signatures were put. There appears no reason not to conclude that under the receipt Annexure-4 the application form bearing No.229619 was received by the respondent- RPSC. It is not the case of the respondent-RPSC that under the said receipt (Annex.4) any other application form than that of 4 the petitioner was received. Once the said application is found to have been delivered to RPSC, it remains under obligation and responsibility to account for the same; and for the RPSC failing to do so, there appears no reason to deprive the candidate of her rights for a fault that could be attributed anywhere but upon the petitioner. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondent- RPSC shall consider petitioner's candidature with reference to the marks obtained by her in the written examination in accordance with law taking that she did submit her application complete in all respects within time; and if necessary, for the purpose of completion of its records, RPSC might ask the petitioner to fill up another application form. The petitioner shall appear before RPSC on 06.09.2007 with all necessary credentials for appropriate proceedings. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK