[2025:RJ-JP:31606] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12159/2025 Kiran Balotiya D/o Prahalad Balotiya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Sector-1, House No. 90, Kanchan Nagar, Daurai, Ajmer (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Secretariat Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Director, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Main Building, Bhagwan Das Rd, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. 3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 13/08/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected merely on account of non-participation in the Sixth Phase of the interview. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, due to inadvertent error and a technical glitch on the part of the respondents, was unable to participate in the Sixth Phase of the interview. The counsel further requests that the petitioner be given another chance to participate in the interview. [2025:RJ-JP:31606] (2 of 3) [CW-12159/2025] 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. It is an admitted position that after declaration of the result on 02.01.2025, the respondents started calling the selected candidates for interview (personality and viva-voce test) in different phases and the interview of the petitioner was scheduled in Sixth Phase, but the petitioner failed to report on the date of interview, which was scheduled on 17.07.2025 at 09:00 AM, since the petitioner herself is responsible in not appearing in the Sixth Phase of the interview, therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned (Annexure-1) passed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, suffers from any perversity or arbitrariness, whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected due to her own inadvertence, negligence and laxity. Even otherwise, any candidate cannot seek date of his choice for appearing in the interview. 5. Further, looking to the fact that no other aspirant has brought forth the alleged issue of any technical glitch on the respondents' website, and failure of the petitioner to substantiate the same; the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the technical glitch is merely an afterthought, and the same cannot be accepted. 6. In the present case, despite proper communication, the petitioner could not appear in the Sixth Phase of the interview, therefore, her candidature has been canceled due to negligence and laxity on her part, which cannot be considered as an unjust action of the respondents. [2025:RJ-JP:31606] (3 of 3) [CW-12159/2025] 7. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 8. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/58