- (1.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 02.04.2018, the petitioner applied for the post of Rajasthan State and Sub-ordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination), 2018. Counsel further submits that due to bona-fide mistake while filing up the application form the petitioner has filled the category as 'General (Female)' in place of 'MBC (NCL) Female'. Counsel further submits that no third party rights have been created as the process of selection is still going on.
(2.) In support of contention, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) decided on 01.11.2017 wherein it has been held as under:- " 1. Learned counsel for the respondents appears on advance copy of the writ-appeal being served. 2 . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. On 18.02.2017 an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of LDC in different District Judgeships and District Legal Services Authority. The advertisement cautioned the applicants to be careful while submitting their applications on-line and ensure that the form was correctly filled up. 4. The appellant claims to be a member of an Other Backward Class and while filling up the on- line form she wrongly clicked at the option "OBC Creamy Layer". This made her disentitled to the benefit of being treated as a candidate in the OBC category, for the reason a member of an Other Backward Class, if falling within creamy layer, would not entitle her to the benefit of reservation. 5. When the result was declared the appellant found that she had secured 158 marks in the written examination and the last female OBC candidate selected had secured 157 marks. She then realised her mistake. 6. Vide impugned decision dated 27.10.2017 the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that being an educated person, the appellant ought to have been careful. 7. To err is human. We do not note the second part: To forgive is divine. 8. Mistakes can be of two kinds. First kind would be where nobody is affected by a mistake. The second is where a third party is affected by a mistake. 9. The difference in the two mistakes would be that whereas rectification of the first would cause no prejudice, rectification of the second would cause a prejudice. 10. We find in the decisions dated 31.07.2013 in D.B.S.A.W No.875/2012, State of Rajasthan Vs. Datar Singh, dated 11.10.2017 in S.B.C.W.P No.7159/2017, Dinesh Kumar Mahawar Vs. RPSC & Ors., dated 27.01.2017 in S.B.C.W.P No.906/2017, Shimala Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dated 24.11.2016 in S.B.C.W.P No.15654/2016, Sapana Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P.(Civil) No.3721/2017, Arkshit Kapoor Vs. Union of India & Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P. (Civil) No.11642/2016, Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and Ors., passed by this Court and the Delhi High Court, the consistent view taken is that a bonafide mistake which does not affect a third party right should be allowed to be cured. 11. We dispose of the appeal directing that the appellant be treated as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate and we permit her to participate in the further selection process. Needless to state the respondents would be entitled to verify the certificate submitted by the appellant. 12. Being informed that the type test is scheduled for 02.11.2017 we direct that the appellant be issued an Admit Card entitling her to take the type test tomorrow i.e. 02.11.2017. The Admit Card be issued today itself. 13. The appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 and allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant."
(3.) Counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that opportunity was given to the candidate for correction in her application form and since the petitioner failed to correct the application form in time, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.;