- (1.) The issue in question is a trivial one, which could have been easily resolved by the respondents. Yet the insensitivity of the system and disinclination to take a decision has entailed this writ petition. The heavy docket of the court in some measure is definitely contributed to by the failure of the government in its myriad every day administrative functions to decide an issue only for reason of a minor deviation quite irrelevant to its merit cropping up. The courts then are required to address matters of no legal complication which the administration could have addressed with some sensitivity and application of mind. The petitioner has however not been fortunate to be the subject of the administration's benevolence, within the ambit of law or a sense of justice and his appointment to the post of General Teacher Grade-III Level-I has thus been mired in a petty dispute.
(2.) Pursuant to advertisement dated 14-8-2013 for appointment to the post of General Teacher Grade-III Level-I through direct recruitment, the petitioner submitted an on-line application in the category of OBC from Zila Parishad Nagaur under application ID No.20010031371. In clause 7 of the said on-line application, relating to qualification of Rajasthan Teacher Eligible Test (RTET), the petitioner mentioned details of RTET certificate of 2012, in which he scored 95 marks out of 150, i.e. 63.33% marks 60%. However, owing to an obvious human error the petitioner wrongly mentioned roll number of RTET as 1721070 instead of 1702170 as it ought to have been. RTET 2011 mark-sheet in which he had secured less than 60% was also sbumitted. This entailed consideration of only the RTET Examination 2011 where the petitioner's performance rendered him ineligible. He was thus not selected. The petitioner found out the reason of his non-selection as detailed above on downloading the mark-sheet from the inter-net after it had been so placed by the respondents.
(3.) Counsel submitted that the petitioner is not being appointed to the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I despite having obtained higher marks than the cut-off marks for reason of mismatch of the roll number of the petitioner in the mark-sheet of RTET 2012 with the roll number filled in clause-7 of the application form for the post in issue. He submitted that the respondents had wrongly considered the marks of RTET 2011, when the petitioner had obtained 60% marks (the eligibility) in the RTET 2012, more so when the said certificate/ mark-sheet was uploaded with the application form.;