[2026:RJ-JP:10695]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3766/2026 Vinod Kumar Binwal S/o Bhagirath Prasad, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Village Thoi, District Sikar, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Secretary ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura with Ms. Shivangi Singh Patel, Mr. Jeetram Choudhary &

Ms. Madhavi Vyas For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

13/03/2026

1. The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the denial of correction in his category in the recruitment process for the post of Class-IV employees.

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. In the present writ petition, petitioner belongs to SC- LD/CP category. It was submitted that Unique Disability ID number has been placed on record by the petitioner in support of his claim, yet while ignoring the same and on account of the fact that the petitioner is less educated and has no knowledge with regard to computer or the process of filing the online application form, got his form filled through third person/E-Mitra, who instead of showing the category of petitioner as 'SC-LD/CP', showed the petitioner as 'SC'.

4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing the application form, the petitioner participated in the written examination and although, he secured more marks than the cut-off marks declared for 'SC-LD/CP' candidates, yet only on account of human error occurred while submitting the application form, the petitioner was not considered in the category of 'SC-LD/CP'.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after declaration of result, petitioner also submitted application/affidavit seeking correction in his category, yet no action was taken by the respondent-Board. It is also submitted that, in case, the petitioner was treated in the category of 'SC- LD/CP', then he would have secured proper place in the merit list for further consideration in the recruitment process.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 ifjorZu dh vuqefr ugha gksxhA vH;FkhZ dks ;fn vkj{k.k Js.kh@fnO;kaxtu Js.kh@ewy fuokl esa la'kks/ku djus gS rks igys mls OTR ist ij vkj{k.k J.skh@fnO;kaxtu J.skh@ewy fuokl esa la'kks/ku djuk gksxk blls mls Lo;a ds vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa iwoZ esa Hkjs x;s vkj{k.k Js.kh@fnO;kaxtu J.skh@ewy fuokl esa la'kks/ku djus dk fodYi miyC/k gks tk;sxk] ftls mi;ksx esa ysdj og okafNr la'kks/ku dj ldrk gSA vkWuykbZu vkosnu Submit fd;s tkus ds i'pkr~ ;fn vkosnd dks fdlh izdkj dh =qfV dk irk yxrk gS rks vH;FkhZ vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa QksVks] gLrk{kj ,oa mu lwpukvksa dks ifjofrZr ugha dj ik,xk tks mlus OTR ds le; ntZ dh gSA 'ks"k lwpukvksa esa og la'kks/ku fuEukuqlkj dj ldrk gS%&

i. ;