The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's recognition of the petitioner's bonafide mistake in filling the application form and the granting of indulgence to rectify the mistake, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic approach to avoid the lapse of unfilled seats.

ORDER :

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the list issued by the respondents providing posting to the candidates who have been selected for the appointment to the post of Teacher Grade – III (Level I).

2. The facts appertain are that the respondents had issued an advertisement dated 12.04.2018 for filling up the post of Teacher Grade – III (Level I).

3. The petitioner being an eligible candidate and desirous of appointment submitted an online application form on 27.04.2018 as an ‘Unreserved and General category’ candidate.

4. Due to inadvertence or otherwise, in the column meant for ‘Specially Abled Category’, so also in the column meant for ‘Apply for Special Education’, the petitioner had indicated - ‘Hearing Impairment’.

5. The petitioner had secured more marks than the cut – off of the General category candidates, hence in the result, which was declared on 01.06.2018, he was shown to be selected in ‘Hearing Impaired’ category.

6. Thereafter, in the list of candidates selected for document verification published by the respondents on 08.06.2018, the petitioner was allotted District Barmer.

7. The petitioner appeared for document verification, whereafter, when the list of candidates appointed was issued, he did not find his name, for which, the petitioner has approached this Court.

8. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the copy of the application form and highlighted that so far as space given for the ‘category’ is concerned, the petitioner had indisputably written ‘Unreserved’ and it was due to confusion or misconception, he had written ‘hearing impairment’ in the column meant for ‘Specially Abled Category’.

9. Learned counsel emphasised that the petitioner was conscious of this fact that he was not having any impairment or disability and also that he had to compete for the remaining seats or seats left for ‘Unreserved Category’. Mr. Yadav submitted that the petitioner had indicated ‘Hearing Impairment’ in the column under a mistaken belief that in such column, he was supposed to write about the nature of special education. It was so felt because, the petitioner had studied and got training for teaching specially abled children of Hearing Impaired category, added Mr. Yadav.

10. Learned counsel submitted that when the lists were issued on 01.06.2018 and 08.06.2018, the petitioner did not realize that his selection has been made as a ‘PH category’ candidate. And when he appeared for document verification, obviously he could not and did not produce any disability certificate, for which his candidature seems to have been rejected.

11. Learned counsel argued that the purported error in filling up the application form was completely a bonafide mistake in understanding the details to be filled in the online application form, as he belong to Haryana and had no prior experience of filling form in Rajasthan. He argued that an inadvertent error cannot deprive the petitioner of his right of getting employment, when he is otherwise a meritorious candidate.

12. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent – State submitted that true it is, that the petitioner had filled in ‘Unreserved’ in the column meant for the category, but such column was designed only for the caste based reservation.

13. He submitted that petitioner ought to have been more vigilant and should not have shown himself to be a hearing impaired candidate by reflecting ‘Hearing Impairment’ in the column meant for ‘Specially Abled Category’.

14. It was further submitted by Mr. Sharma that the petitioner’s claim made in the writ petition amounts to change in the category which is impermissible in the eye of law, more particularly, when the result has been declared and a select list has been issued.

15. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner ought to have noticed that the list dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure.5) which clearly indicated that the petitioner was s