Minor errors committed by candidates in filling online application forms deserve condonation to ensure a fair selection process.

1. - By this petition for writ, the petitioner is claiming for a direction for the respondents to evaluate his answersheet and to award him appropriate marks in written examination undertaken in pursuant to advertisement dated 14.10.2010 pertaining to the recruitment as Constable in district Jaipur (Rural).

2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that under the advertisement dated 14.10.2010, the respondents initiated process of recruitment for the post of Constable (General), Constable (Operator), Constable (Driver), Constable (Horse Rider) and Constable (Band) in several districts of the State of Rajasthan against 7300 vacant posts. Being eligible, the petitioner applied to face the process of selection and faced the same by appearing in written examination on 23.01.2011 with roll numbers 118672 in the category of Other Backward Class (Male). Suffice to mention that the petitioner sought his consideration for recruitment as Constable in district Jaipur (Rural). On declaration of the result of the written test, the cut-off marks fixed for the category of Other Backward Class (Male) were 32. 375. The petitioner was hopeful to have about 72 marks in written test, but his roll numbers were not shown in the list of successful candidates, therefore, he submitted a representation to the respondents to convey him the marks obtained in written test. On receiving no response, he submitted an application as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to have details pertaining to the marks obtained by him in the written test referred above. The Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Jaipur vide communication dated 28.03.2011 refused to supply the information looking to the secrecy required to be maintained in the process of selection. The petitioner re-iterated his cause and ultimately vide a communication dated 02.11.2011, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) -cum- Public Information Officer, District Jaipur (Rural), informed that 0 (zero) marks in written test were given to the petitioner as he did not mention his gender in the O. M. R. Sheet. It was also conveyed that the cut-off marks settled for Other Backward Class (Male) in the selection concerned were 32. 375. Being aggrieved by awarding 0 (zero) marks, this petition for writ is preferred.

3. Though the notices were issued to the respondents and service too was effected upon them on 01.02.2012 itself, no reply to the writ petition has been filed. Looking to the urgency in the matter, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard without further waiting for reply.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents were aware of the gender of the petitioner as necessary details were already given in the application form, therefore, no reason was existing to reject his candidature on the count that he failed to refer his gender in O. M. R. Sheet. It is further submitted that as per Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1989'), the candidature of the petitioner could have been rejected only in the event of some lacuna in the application form and not in O. M. R. sheet.

5. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that as per Clause 9(xi) of the notification dated 14.10.2010, the petitioner was under obligation to provide all necessary details as required in O. M. R. sheet. The O. M. R. sheet of the petitioner was admittedly incomplete, therefore, the computer device did not examine his answersheet and awarded 0 (zero) marks.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The candidature of the petitioner is rejected by the respondents on the count that he failed to mention his gender in the O. M. r. sheet. It is also correct that as per clause 9(xi) of the advertisement dated 14.10.2010, all necessary details were supposed to be given in