- (1.) ON 9.3.2015, notices were issued and Mr. Vikas Choudhary, learned counsel accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents. An interim direction to provisionally participate in the interview was issued at the first instance but subsequently during the course of the day, before signing, this Court felt that certain changes were required. Accordingly, the petition was ordered to be kept for rehearing.
(2.) HEARD .
(3.) ON 11.8.2013, an advertisement was issued for the post of Teacher Gr.III under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 for 762 posts. The petitioner submitted his application in pursuance of the said advertisement. He was also issued admission card. He appeared in the written examination. The result of the petitioner was declared on 31.12.2014. In the said result, it was mentioned that "Remarks: - RTET Information (Roll No.and Marks) are not been provided by Candidate. Please submit your RTET Details at Concerning Zila Parishad before Jan 8, 2015." It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not cleared his RTET. However, while praying for the relief, he contended that the petitioner had appeared in the RTET in the year 2011 and secured only 10 marks out of 150. He duly mentioned the marks obtained by him in the RTET while filing the application form online. After verifying the said application, he was called for the written examination. He has also appeared in the examination. Hence, he did not conceal the marks obtained by him in the RTET. It is further contended that the respondents cannot now turn around and refuse to allow him to participate in the interview after he has cleared his written examination. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kapil Vs. Sana Ullah (Dead), 1996 CANDID 1115 to state that respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong.;