[2026:RJ-JP:10602]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3669/2026 Sangita D/o Arjun Lal Sharma, aged about 35 years, R/o Pradhano Ka Mohalla Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Secretary.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1949/2026 Sapana Bano D/o Babu Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Gurjaron Ka Mohalla, Devipura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj Mr. Suresh Kumar with Mr. Vijay Laxmi Jangid For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

13/03/2026

1. Both the above writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with almost similar facts, cause of action and question of consideration, hence, both the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners participated in the direct recruitment process for the post of Class-IV employee initiated by Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.

3. Petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3669/2026 was a widow lady at the time of filing the online application form, whereas, petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1949/2026 was a divorcee. It was submitted that death certificate of husband as well as decree of divorce have been placed on record by the respective petitioners in support of their claims and they submitted that in ignorance of the death certificate as well as decree of divorce, on account of the fact that the petitioners being less educated persons and having no knowledge with regard to computer or the process of filing the online application form, got the form filled through third person/E-Mitra, who instead of showing the category of petitioners as widow/divorcee, as the case may be, showed the petitioners as married persons.

4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that after filing the application form, both the petitioners participated in the written examination and although, they secured more marks than the cut-off marks declared for widow or divorcee candidates, yet only on account of human error occurred while submitting the application form, the petitioners were not considered as widow or divorcee.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that after declaration of result, both the petitioners also submitted applications/affidavits seeking correction in their category, yet no action was taken by the respondent-Board. It is also submitted that, in case, the petitioners were treated in the category of widow/divorcee, then they would have secured proper place in the merit list for further consideration in the recruitment process.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

7. Clause 17 of the advertisement issued by respondent-

Board is reproduced hereunder:

“17. vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku dh izfØ;k%& cksMZ }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku gsrq dksbZ vkWQykbZu izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA cksMZ }kjk tkjh foKfIr fnukad 14-07-2023 } kjk ;fn fdlh vH;FkhZ dks vius OTR esa Lo;a ds uke] firk ds uke] tUefrfFk ,oa fyax esa ifjorZu djuk gS rks mls loZizFke vius vk/kkj@tuvk/kkj esa ifjorZu djokuk gksxk rRi'pkr~ OTR LØhu ij Qsp dk cVu nckuk gksxk ftlls vk/kkj@tuvk/kkj esa ntZ uohu MkVk mlds OTR esa Lor% gh vk tk;sxkA vH;FkhZ dksa vius OTR esa vkj{k.k J.skh] fnO;kaxtu Js.kh ,oa ewy fuokl esa okafNr la'kks/ku djus dh vuqefr nh xbZ gSA vH;FkhZ la'kks/ku djus ds mijkUr gh vkWuykbZu vkosnu HkjsaA ;fn vH;FkhZ HkrhZ dk vkWuykbZu vkosnu lcfeV dj pqdk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku djus dh vof/k ds nkSjku Hkh mls Lo;a ds uke] firk ds uke] tUefrfFk ,oa fyax esa if