JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-II pursuant to the Direct Recruitment, 2018.

2. It is, inter alia, claimed in the writ petition that petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-II subject English for TSP area.

3. While filling up the requisite marks, pertaining to the 'educational qualification details' and 'subject of graduation', as petitioner had passed English as an additional subject, while filling up the marks of graduation in educational qualification details, he added the said marks for the total marks as well as marks obtained and again indicated the same for subject for graduation, the result being the total marks of the petitioner were indicated as 59.6%. When cut off list Annexure-5 was issued, wherein, the cut off for petitioner's category was indicated as 60.22%, the petitioner realised the mistake. It is submitted that if the total marks as well as the marks obtained are deducted from the educational qualification details obtained by petitioner in the additional subject, the percentage of marks obtained by the petitioner would be 60.25%.

4. Submissions have been made that on a representation made by the petitioner, the C.E.O., Zila Parishad, Udaipur has sought instructions from the Director, Primary Education and Panchayati Raj vide Annexure-7 indicating the petitioner's status. However, the respondents have so far not responded to the same.

5. Reliance has been placed on judgment in Dayal Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 16242/2018, decided on 25.11.2018 at Jaipur Bench.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that though the communication made by the CEO is still pending with the Director, the fact that the petitioner has approached the respondents for correction only after the cut off was declared, the petitioner is not entitled for such correction and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

8. From the perusal of Annexure-7, it is apparent that in case the marks as obtained by the petitioner are correctly applied, the petitioner would be having 60.259% marks for the purpose of recruitment, however, on account of the mistake committed by the petitioner, while filling up the application form, the marks obtained have come to 59.598%. The cut off admittedly is 60.22%.

9. The Division Bench in the case of Kavita Choudhary vs. The Registrar (Examination) : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1700/2017, decided on 01.11.2017, while dealing with the correction of mistakes came to the following conclusion:-

"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 t he first would cause no prejudice, 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 & 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