[2025:RJ-JP:9383-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3201/2025 Bheem Singh Dabla S/o Nihal Singh Dabla, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Opposite Cisf Camp, Amer, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302028. Presently Posted As Assistant Prosecution Officer, Additional Judicial Magistrate Court, Baran. ----Petitioner Versus 1. High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur Through Registrar General. 2. Registrar Examination, High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Intjar Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Vishnukant Sharma HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 04/03/2025 1. Heard. 2. The challenge to rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is premised mainly on the submission that even though, the petitioner failed to submit required documents as specified in Part-II of the Notice dated 09.12.2024 within the time stipulated i.e. 31.12.2024, he belatedly submitted those documents on 17.01.2025. He would submit that as process of scrutiny was going on and the candidates were notified vide Notice dated 14.01.2025 to remove identified discrepancies in their applications after scrutiny, upto 24.01.2025, the petitioner was also entitled to indulgence by the respondents notwithstanding the fact that he failed to submit required the documents by 31.12.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:9383-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3201/2025] 3. The process of selection cannot be allowed to be derailed at the instance of those who have failed to fulfill the requirement of submission of documents and certificates as per the prescribed procedure. The Notice dated 09.12.2024, Part-II clearly required the candidates to submit various details and documents upto 31.12.2024 (5 pm). 4. There is absolutely no reason assigned in the application why the petitioner could not submit these documents within the stipulated period. The petitioner, thus, failed to submit the documents as per the time schedule. 5. An argument that scrutiny was still going on, therefore, delay should have been condoned, would amount to amending the prescribed procedure as per notifications issued from time to time. Notice dated 14.01.2025 was based on scrutiny of application forms/documents which were submitted on or before 31.12.2024. If the petitioner’s contention is accepted, the process of scrutiny would become unending as new submissions will again be required to be scrutinized and then, opportunity to be granted to remove the deficiencies/defects in the case. The date of examination has already been declared and cannot be allowed to be changed for those who have remained indolent and negligent. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition warranting interference by this Court. 6. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ INDER/PAYAL/260