Allowed

Shakuntala Bairwa D/O Sh. Ratan Lal Bairwa v. the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2018CW/25228/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition permitting a candidate to correct a bona fide clerical error in her selection form. The petitioner was directed to change her listed subject from Economics to Commerce and participate in the ongoing examination process.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to change her subject from 'Economics' to 'Commerce' and participate in the examination process.

Shakuntala Bairwa D/O Sh. Ratan Lal Bairwa Vs the… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 25228/2018

¶3

Shakuntala Bairwa D/o Sh. Ratan Lal Bairwa, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Bairwa (Sc), R/o Plot No. F-49, Maa Karni Nagar, Maharana Pratap Marg, Panchyawala, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302021.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. MF Baig

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶9

Judgment / Order

¶10

03/12/2018

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance

¶12

to the advertisement dated 13.04.2018, the petitioner applied for

¶13

the post of Lecturer (School Education). Counsel further submits

¶14

that due to bona-fide mistake while filling up the application form

¶15

the petitioner mentioned subject ‘Economics’ in place of

¶16

‘Commerce’. Counsel further submits that no third party rights

¶17

have been created as the process of selection is still going on.

¶18

In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner

¶19

relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CW-25228/2018]

¶22

court in the matter of Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar

¶23

(Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (D.B. Civil Special

¶24

Appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017) decided on 01.11.2017 wherein it

¶25

was held:-

¶26

“1. Learned counsel for the respondents appears on advance copy of the writ-appeal being served.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

To err is human. We do not note the second part: To forgive is divine.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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 & 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 & 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.

¶36

We dispose of the appeal directing that the appellant be treated as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate and we permit

¶37

(3 of 3)

¶38

[CW-25228/2018]

¶39

her to participate in the further selection process. Needless to state the respondents would be entitled to verify the certificate submitted by the appellant.

¶40

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.

¶41

The appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 and allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant.”

¶42

Counsel for the respondent submitted that twice

¶43

opportunities were given to the candidates for correcting the

¶44

mistake in their application form and since the petitioner failed to

¶45

correct the mistake in the application form in time, no relief could

¶46

be granted to the petitioner.

¶47

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶48

In view of the judgment passed by Division Bench of

¶49

this court in the matter of Kavita Choudhary (supra) the writ

¶50

petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed , as no third party rights have been created because the process of selection is still going on.

¶51

In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands

¶52

allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to

¶53

change her subject from ‘Economics’ to ‘Commerce’ and to

¶54

participate in the examination process.

¶55

(ALOK SHARMA),J

¶56

Shakuntala Bairwa D/O Sh. Ratan Lal Bairwa v. the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Bairwa D/O Sh. Ratan Lal Bairwa v. the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil Dev Sharma and Anr. Vs State Panchayati Raj Ors.

Asha Devi Meena Vs State Panchayati Raj Ors.

Kanwar Singh Andors Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Kailash Chand Jat Vs State D G P Anr.

Poonam D/O Thawar Singh Yadav Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Meena S/O Sarwan Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan