A candidate cannot be permitted to change their category in a recruitment application at a belated stage after the declaration of results, especially when sufficient opportunities for rectifying such errors were provided by the examining body during the recruitment process.

Headnote:(A) Recruitment - Category change - Correction in application form - Petitioner sought change of category from General to EWS Widow after declaration of final results - Advertisement provided specific two-stage windows for rectification to candidates - Petitioner failed to utilize these opportunities despite clear instructions and awareness of the error - Held, a candidate having participated in the selection process in a particular category cannot be permitted to change the same at a belated stage after the declaration of results. (Paras 8, 9, 10, and 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a candidate for the post of Class-IV employee, inadvertently submitted her application under the 'General Widow' category instead of the 'EWS Widow' category due to the assistance of a third party. Despite appearing in the examination and having subsequent opportunities to rectify the error as provided by the recruitment board, the petitioner did not move for correction until after the result was declared. Consequently, the board declined to entertain her request for a change in category.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the recruitment board had provided sufficient procedural avenues for error correction, which the petitioner failed to avail. Relying on judicial precedents, the Court affirmed that allowing category changes after the examination process undermines the recruitment process and is legally impermissible.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a change in her candidature category after the completion of the recruitment examination and declaration of results.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate who participates in a recruitment process under a specific category, having been granted multiple opportunities for rectification, cannot be permitted to modify their category status following the publication of results, as such changes at a belated stage compromise the integrity of the selection process.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges denial of category correction post-examination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. failure to utilize prescribed rectification windows precludes category change requests. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. belated requests for category change are legally impermissible in recruitment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

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

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

3. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to 'EWS Widow' category. 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 her form filled through third person/E-Mitra, who instead of showing the category of petitioner as 'EWS Widow', showed the petitioner as 'General Widow'.

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, she secured more marks than the cut-off marks declared for 'EWS Widow' candidate, yet only on account of human error occurred while submitting the application form, the petitioner was not considered in the category of 'EWS Widow'.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after declaration of result, petitioner also submitted application/affidavit seeking correction in her 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 'EWS Widow', then she 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'kk s/ku gsrq dk sbZ 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 es a Lo; a ds uke] firk ds uke] tUefrfFk ,oa fyax esa ifjorZu djuk gS rks mls loZizFke vius vk/kkj@tuvk/kkj es a ifjorZu djokuk gksxk rRi'pkr~ OTR LØhu ij Q sp dk cVu nckuk gksxk ftll s vk/kkj@tuvk/kkj esa ntZ uohu MkVk mlds OTR esa Lor% gh vk tk; sxkA vH;FkhZ dksa vius OTR es a vkj{k.k Js.kh] fnO;kaxtu J s.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 vko snu HkjsaA ;fn vH;FkhZ HkrhZ dk vkWuykbZu vkosnu lcfeV dj pqdk gS rks , slh fLFkfr esa vkWuykbZu vko snu 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 J s.kh@fnO;kaxtu J s.kh@ewy fuokl esa la'kks/ku djus gS rks igys mls OTR i st ij vkj{k.k J s.kh@fnO;kaxtu J s.kh@e wy fuokl esa la'kks/ku djuk gksxk bll s mls Lo; a d s vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa iwoZ es a Hkjs x; s vkj{k.k J s.kh@fnO;kaxtu J s.kh@e wy 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 dk s fdlh izdkj dh =qfV dk irk yxrk gS rks vH;FkhZ vkWuykbZu vko snu esa QksVk s] gLrk{kj ,oa mu lwpukvksa dks ifjofrZr ugha dj ik,xk tks mlus OTR ds le; ntZ dh gSA 'ks"k lwpukvksa es a og la'kks/ku fuEukuqlkj dj ldrk gS%&

i. ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ vius vkWuykbZu vko snu esa la'kk s/ku djkuk pkgrk gS rks vkosnu izkfIr dh v afre fnukad ds i'pkr~ 07 fnol ds Hkhrj fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd 300@& :i; s nsdj vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku dj ldrk gSA vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vH;FkhZ QksVk s] gLrk{kj ,oa mu lwpukvksa dk s ifjofrZr ugha dj ik,xk tk s mlus OTR ds le; ntZ dh gS ;Fkk uke] firk dk uke] tUefrfFk]

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9719

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)Anand Sharma, JManju Kanwer – AppellantVersusState Of Rajasthan – RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4399/2026

A candidate cannot be permitted to change their category in a recruitment application at a belated stage after the declaration of results, especially when sufficient opportunities for rectifying such errors were provided by the examining body during the recruitment process.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Anand Sharma, J
Manju Kanwer – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4399/2026