PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most humble prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to accept the examination fee of the petitioner and further he may kindly be allow to appear in written examination for the post of LDC in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.12.2017 (Annex.1) and if he found eligible then he may be given appointment on the post of LDC. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties are with an agreement that the present controversy is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Ghanshyam v. Rajasthan High Court and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8524/2017) decided on 20.11.2017 . The judgment reads as under: "1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers. "a. The respondents may kindly be directed to allow and permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the District Courts and District Legal Services Authorities in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.02.2017 (Annex.1). b. The respondents may kindly be directed to issue the permission letter for the direct recruitment to the post of LDC for District Courts, Examination, 2017 which is scheduled to be held on 23.07.2017. c. The respondents may kindly be directed to provide the appointment to the petitioner for the post of Lower Divisional Clerk in the District Courts and District Legal Services Authorities in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.02.2017 if he otherwise found suitable. d. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner with cost of the petition. e. Cost may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. The matter pertains to Rajasthan High Court notification dated 18.02.2017 for appointment on the post of Lower Divisional Clerk in the District Courts and District Legal Services Authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the Annexure- 2, which is a receipt of online fee deposited to SBI Bank, Sardarshahar. It is also stated that in spite of such deposition, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to appear. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent however refutes the submission and states that the controversy is squarely covered by judgments passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8588/2017 Lakshmi Narayan v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. decided on 25.10.2017 , which reads as follows: "The present group of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners, desirous of participating in the selection process for the recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk ('LDC'), pursuant to the Notification dated 18.02.2017, issued by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. As all the writ petitions involve identical facts and raise common grievances, they are being disposed of with this common order; however, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8588/2017 "Lakshmi Narayan v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Ors." are being taken into consideration, as a lead case. The petitioner submitted his on-line application form on 17.03.2017. According to the petitioner, he had not only submitted the on-line application form, he had paid the requisite examination fee, by way of on-line payment through payment gateway or the link provided on the website of the High Court. When an intimation about uploading of the admit card was published in the newspaper, the petitioner proceeded to download his admit card, only to realise that his admit card is not available on the official website and instead thereof, a note against the space of token number was shown as "Fee Not Received" and in another column, it was indicated "Not Allowed". Realising that his examination fee has allegedly not been received by the respondents, for which he had been denied to appear in the examination, the petitioner rushed to this Court by way of filing the present writ petition, asserting, inter alia, that he had made on-line payment, which is evident from perusal of his bank statement, having been duly made on 18.03.2017. A passing reference of the Notification dated 22.04.2017 published by the High Court on its official website has been made, vide which the Respondent No. 2 had uploaded the list of the candidates, whose fee had not been received, which included the petitioner's name. The petitioner has however, pleaded that he could not notice the same, as he did not go trough the website of the High Court. At the time of hearing of the writ petition at admission stage, this Court by way of interim order directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the written examination; after accepting the examination fee vide Demand Draft. Learned counsels for the petitioners mainly contended that at the time of submitting the on-line application form(s), payment had been duly made and the amount was debited in their account or had been shown to have been made from the wallet of e-Mitra, which is evident from the copy of the application forms submitted by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the respondents have published a notification on its official website informing that payment in relation to some of the candidates has not been received, while giving the names of such candidates; the petitioners could not check the website and take requisite steps to make good the deficiency. The petitioners' contention has been that it was required of the respondents to have intimated the petitioners by way of SMS or other mode of communication, so that they could realise that the requisite fee has not been received by the respondents. The petitioners' argument has also been that as far as payment part is concerned, the payment has been remitted from their end, and if for some reason, the respondents have not received the same, it is failure of system or technical flaw at recipient's end, for which, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that a candidate is not supposed to keep a continuous track or watch on the website of the High Court, particularly when the form was duly uploaded and Reference Number had been generated. Dr. Acharya relied upon the observations made by a Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3331/2014 titled as "Sunil Bhanwariya v. Registrar, Examination Cell, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Anr.", in its judgment dated 12.05.2014 , which reads thus:- "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 emhpasizing on the inflexible requirement of furnishing complete and correct information's 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." Learned counsel for the High Court submitted that though in the writ petition filed by the petitioner Lakshmi Narayan, the petitioner has made a reference of the Notification dated 22.04.2017, but in some of the cases, the concerned petitioners have not even made reference of the said Notification, for which, their writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. In support of this contention, Mr. Acharya relied upon a judgment dated 21.07.2017 of this Court, rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Court, in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11631/2017 titled as "Indu v. The Registrar General and Anr." . It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant portion of the observations, which runs as under:- "The petitioners have approached this Court by suppressing the material fact of notice on 22nd April, 2017. They did not take necessary steps to cure the defect of deposit of Examination fee, despite an opportunity accorded to them. By now, it is well settled law that it is the duty of the litigant to disclose all the material facts. Further, it is not for the litigant to decide, which facts are material and which are not. He/She must come to the Court with clean hands and disclose all material facts relating to his/her case. For the reason that there is a suppression of material fact it is sufficient to decline any interference while exercising extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. In the result, the writ applications are dismissed for suppression of material facts. Interim order, is hereby vacated." Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the High Court navigated the Court extensively through the process of submitting on-line application form, including the General Instructions and pictorial depiction of the process of submitting on-line application form. For the purpose of present controversy, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant part of the General Instructions and on-line depiction, links whereof have been latched on the official website of the High Court and they are still available. General Instructions (4) There are two mode of filling online application : (A) Application filling using own laptop/computer with internet connection by making payment of Examination Fee through Debit Card/Credit Card/Net Banking or m-Wallet. (B) Application filling with payment of Examination Fee at e-mitra kiosk. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 1. 1 - Fill application online - ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 2) After filling application click on "Make Payment" button at the bottom of filled-in application; ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (i) If form is successfully saved then you will get the Reference Number for payment only, then again click on "Make Payment" button at the bottom of Reference Number to make payment of Examination Fee through Debit Card/Credit Card/Net Banking or m-Wallet. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (ii) In case of non generation of Reference Number/non transfer to the page for payment, fill the application afresh. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 3) The link of payment of fee shall remain active for three days after last date of submission of online application. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 4) On successful payment of Examination Fee, your application will be submitted. You can take print out of application with Application ID and note down the Application ID for future reference. Generation of Application ID is proof of successful submission of application. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 5) In case of failure of payment of Examination Fee at the time of filling of online application due to network/server problem, payment can be made up to the last date for depositing Examination Fee using Reference Number. Please note down and remember Reference Number till payment of Examination fee is made. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (xi) The applicants are advised to check the details filled-in and satisfy themselves that all information have been correctly filled-up. If applicant finds information correct and he is in agreement with declaration, may click on 'Make Payment' button at the bottom of this page. No change in the filled-in information by the applicant would be allowed after clicking on 'Make Payment' button in any case. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (xv) After successful payment applicants will be redirected to the page where the system displays filled in application with the Application ID generated. Applicant is advised to note down the Application ID for future correspondence. To take the print out of filled online application, applicant are also advised to download the pdf file by clicking the "Print Application Form" button provided at the bottom/top. You are also advised to save this pdf file. Getting Application ID is a proof of final submission of application. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... NOTE : Non generation of Application ID is clear indication of the fact that your online application has not been submitted for non payment of Examination Fee. In such a case you will not be eligible to appear in Examination. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Heard rival counsels and perused the material available on record and gone through the process of submitting on-line application form. Wading through the process of submitting on-line application form, this Court finds that there were three crucial stages of submitting on-line application form, viz., (i) on successful completion/filing of the form, a Reference Number is generated; (ii) with the said reference, a candidate can make payment through e-Mitra or on-line banking, which would generate a Token Number; and (iii) with the generation of the Token Number, the data would be disseminated to the High Court's server and on receipt of the payment by the High Court, an Application ID is generated. Generation of Application ID is a proof of successful submitting of an on-line application form and payment in relation thereto. It is, therefore, clear that in case Application ID is not generated, it is a clear indication that the on-line application form has not been properly submitted and/or the transaction of payment of fee is not complete. A look at photocopy of the printout of the on-line application forms submitted by the petitioners, if compared with the print-out of the on-line application form of the candidates, whose forms have been successfully uploaded, it is apparent that in petitioners' case, the space of Application Number and Token Number is blank and no Application ID is shown; and in petitioners' form, only the Reference Number is exhibited in place of Application Number. If the petitioners had read the instructions carefully, they would have realised simply by looking at the printout of their forms, that their application forms have not been properly filed and the payment of the fee has not been successfully made. In a bid to redress the grievances of the candidates on account of some technical flaws, the Respondents have gracefully given one more opportunity and issued a Notification dated 22.04.2017 permitting the candidates to pay the fee by 02.05.2017, whose payments could not be made, by dint of problems in the process, not attributable to the High Court. Such opportunity was available to all, including the petitioners, as their names were found mentioned in the list of such candidates whose payment of the requisite fee was not received. The petitioners have failed to avail such golden opportunity also and have been sleeping over the matter. The petitioners having applied for the post of LDC cannot afford to remain in hibernation and plead ignorance of the Notification published on the official website of the High Court to contend that they were not aware of the factum of their payment having not been made successfully. On perusal of the conditions of the advertisement, it transpires that the respondents had explained the procedure for submitting on-line application in detail in the form of Clause (10) of the advertisement. As per the procedure prescribed in the application form, particularly Note-8 appended therewith, it was clearly explained that after submitting on-line application form and successful payment of examination fee, an Application ID would be generated; which would be conclusive proof of the fact that candidate's on-line application form has been registered. It was also warned that non-receipt of the Application ID, is a pointer of the fact that the payment of the examination fee has not been made and the application form has not been finally uploaded/registered in the Office of the Registrar (Examination). Upon perusal of the copy of the application form submitted by the petitioners, this Court finds that in none of the case, Application ID has been generated. A further look at the application form reveals that the space provided for Token Number is found blank and only Reference Number has been shown and not the Application ID. After going through the print-out of such application form, a candidate of normal prudence must understand and realise that payment of the examination fee has not been successful. Be that as it may, the respondents have again granted indulgence to the candidates, whose payment of examination fee had not been successful, by giving an alphabetically arranged list of the candidates, whose payments had not been received along with a notice uploaded on the official website of the High Court on 22.04.2017. The candidates were allowed sufficient time upto 02.05.2017 to make payment, while providing a link for payment. The petitioners have remained dormant rather casual, inasmuch as, firstly, they have not ensured submitting of on-line application form and examination fee properly; and secondly, even when a notice came to be published by the Registrar (Examination) on the official website of the High Court, they have not paid any heed and made no attempt to cover up the lacunae of payment of the examination fee, which is fatal to their right of vying in the selection process. The mere fact that the payment of the examination fee has initially been made from their Debit Card or Credit Card or through e-Mitra or on-line payment, so also the fact that such payment has not been credited or returned back to them by the respective Banks or Agencies involved; it cannot be said that the payment of the examination fee has been received by the Registrar (Examination). The payment of fee can be said to be made to the respondents only when they receive the same in their account. As per the procedure of on-line submitting of the application form, as soon as the respondents received the payment, an Application ID was generated. In view of the assertion made by the respondents that they have not received the payment of the examination fee along with the application form and even till the extended date, i.e., 02.05.2017; this Court is not inclined to grant any favour to the petitioners, in the facts obtaining in the present case. The intermediary agencies, such as Debit Card, Credit Card, Agencies or the petitioners' Banks or e-Mitra, are the agents of the petitioners and if there is any lapse or fault on their part, the petitioners cannot shift their burden to the respondents, particularly in view of the fact that their application form itself did not contain proof of payment of the examination fee. The petitioners' submission, that as they have deposited the requisite fee, pursuant to the interim indulgence granted by this Court and have appeared in the written examination, a sympathetical consideration should be given to them and they should be permitted to participate in the on-going selection process, cannot be accepted by this Court, in wake of the facts obtaining in the present case and in teeth of the findings of indolence and indifference recorded by this Court. In the present era of computerisation and communication, a candidate cannot afford to be oblivious of the process of on-line submission of the application form; which has been so extensively and aptly explained in the application form itself and in the General Instructions. The Respondents have even given pictorial depiction for the better understanding of the process of submitting the form and paying fee. The petitioners having applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Institution, like High Court, are supposed to be a bit more vigilant and careful. No equitable or sympathetical consideration can be implored in the present case. Having examined the contentions of the rival parties, in light of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error on the part of the respondents in rejecting petitioners' application forms, for want of receipt of examination fee. The contention of the petitioners that the High Court ought to have issued a public notice in daily newspaper or should have sent individual letter or communication on their mobile, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that there was neither any such stipulation in the advertisement nor the respondents, dealing with six lacs and odd application forms, can humanly undertake such an ardent exercise. As a parting remark, this Court would like to add that in the wake of technological advancement, particularly when the candidates have been asked to give their mobile numbers, the respondents should modify or upgrade their software in such a fashion that at each of the three stages of the application form, or at least on successful submission of the application form and payment of examination fee, the candidate should get SMS (Short Messaging System) on their registered mobile number; which would also facilitate sending other important information's, including the date of examination, change in schedule, date of interview, etc. The observation aforesaid may not be construed to be a direction, but may be considered appropriately in a bid to improve the administration of the examination and to ward off unwarranted litigation, with which the Courts are otherwise flooded. The Writ Petitions are nevertheless dismissed." 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11631/2017 Indu v. Registrar General and Anr. decided on 21.07.2017 . The judgment reads as under: "In the above noted writ applications, identical questions of law and facts are involved, and therefore, have been taken up together for final adjudication, at this stage, by this common order, with consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner(s). Briefly, the essential material facts are that the petitioners claiming themselves to be eligible, to participate in the recruitment process; submitted their applications for consideration of their candidatures in response to advertisement dated 18th February, 2017, for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The examination in the recruitment involved herein is to be held in two phases; (i) Written Examination and (ii) Computer Speed Test and Efficiency Test. The petitioners submitted their Online application form through E-Mitra Kiosk and also submitted their examination fees. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the petitioners learned about their disqualification only from the information that was reflected on the website of the Rajasthan High Court wherein a list of ineligible candidates was punished on 24th June, 2017. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that they learned about their ineligibility only recently for they did not access to the website of the Rajasthan High Court. This Court, while entertaining the writ applications on the basis of pleadings supported by a duly sworn affidavit, made an interim order, permitting the petitioners to participate in the recruitment process for which Written Examination of the first phase is to be held on 23rd July, 2017. From the contents of the writ applications and statement made by the counsel for the parties, it was specifically admitted that the fact of notice displayed on the website of the Rajasthan High Court on 22nd April, 2017, has not been mentioned in the memo of writ applications. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners have not disclosed the material fact of the notice displayed on the website of the Rajasthan High Court on 22nd April, 2017, which was in continuation of advertisement dated 18th February, 2017. The notice in no uncertain terms notified, for information of all the concerned about the list of candidates whose online applications for Direct Recruitment to the post of LDC and Stenographer for District Courts, 2017; have not been successfully submitted due to failure of payment of examination fee after generation of Reference Number due to non-generation of Token Number. The notice also reflects that an opportunity was allowed to such candidates to deposit their examination fee online from 25th April, 2017 to 2nd May, 2017, by clicking on link "Make payment (If Reference No Exists)". In case of difficulty in payment of fees, candidates were advised to contact on helpline numbers and on Email-ID as detailed out in the notice. It will be profitable to take note of contents of notice dated 22nd April, 2017, which reads thus: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR NOTICE No. RHC/Exaell/2017/193 Dated 22.04.2017 In continuation to Advertisement No. RHCJ/EXAM CELL/S.C./LDC/2017/83 Dated: 18.02.2017 and RHCJ/EXAM CELL/S.C./Stenographer/2017/84 Dated: 18.02.2017, it is notified for information of all concerned that list of candidates whose online applications for Direct Recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk and Stenographer for District Courts, 2017, have not been successfully submitted due to failure of payment of examination fee after generation of Reference No. due to non generation of Token Number, is published herewith. In the interest of justice one last opportunity is being provided for payment of examination fees to the candidates whose name appears in the annexed list. They may deposit their examination fee online from Tuesday, 25.04.2017 to Tuesday, 02.05.2017 be clicking on link "Make Payment (If Reference No Exists)" available on www.rhcexam.nic.in or by availing services of e-Mitra. It is further notified that candidature of candidates failing to deposit examination fees till 02.05.2017 shall be rejected without any further notice. In case of difficulty in payment of fees candidates are advised to contact on helpline numbers 0141-5153222 (Ext.-22212) (Emitra), 0291-2541042, 0291-2541388 (High Court) and on e-mail id helpdesk.onlinepymt@rajasthan.gov.in" The petitioners have approached this Court by suppressing the material fact of notice on 22nd April, 2017. They did not take necessary steps to cure the defect of deposit of Examination fee, despite an opportunity accorded to them. By now, it is well settled law that it is the duty of the litigant to disclose all the material facts. Further, it is not for the litigant to decide, which facts are material and which are not. He/she must come to the Court with clean hands and disclose all material facts relating to his/her case. For the reason that there is a suppression of material fact it is sufficient to decline any interference while exercising extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. In the result, the writ applications are dismissed for suppression of material facts. Interim order, is hereby vacated. A copy of this order be placed in each of the file." 5. On careful perusal of both the judgments, it is seen by this Court that the controversy is squarely covered. 6. In light of aforesaid judgments, the present writ petition is dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed.
(3.) In light of the afore-quoted judgment, the present petition is also dismissed in the same terms.;