A candidate cannot change their recruitment category after the declaration of results, especially when opportunities for rectification were provided, as it would be arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the advertisement.

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for appointment to the post of Class-IV Employee under the “Outstanding Sports Person” category and to accept his offline application along with documents submitted subsequent to declaration of the result.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board issued Advertisement No.19/2024 dated 12.12.2024 inviting online applications for direct recruitment to the posts of Class-IV Employees. The petitioner, claiming himself to be eligible, submitted his application form through online portal. Upon declaration of the merit list and thereafter, the revised result, the petitioner secured 63.794 marks. However, his candidature was considered in the category as opted by him in the online application form, which apparently was not sufficient to get appointment to the petitioner.

3. Subsequent to declaration of the result, the petitioner approached the respondents and submitted an offline application seeking consideration of his candidature under the “Outstanding Sports Person” category on the basis of his NCC ‘C’ certificate and academic achievements, including his M.Sc. Gold Medal. The said request was declined by the respondents on the ground that no modification in category can be permitted after submission of the online application form and declaration of the result. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner could not opt for the appropriate category at the time of submission of the online application form due to inadvertent error and lack of clarity in the online portal. It is further submitted that the petitioner possesses meritorious credentials, including NCC ‘C’ certificate and academic distinction, and therefore, deserves to be considered under the “Outstanding Sports Persons” category. It is argued that the respondents ought to have permitted correction of such inadvertent mistake, particularly when the petitioner had submitted representations prior to the stage of document verification.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the entire selection process is governed strictly by the terms and conditions of the advertisement, which has been strictly followed by the respondents. It is further contended that the petitioner never applied under the “Outstanding Sports Person” category and despite there being a procedure under Clause 17 of the advertisement enabling the candidates to make any rectification in the application form, petitioner did not avail the opportunities. Therefore, now he cannot be permitted to change his category after declaration of the result. It is also submitted that the eligibility criteria for the said category were specifically defined in the advertisement itself, including the requirement of certificates issued by recognised sports institutions and participation in specified tournaments. The petitioner does not possess any such certificate and his NCC ‘C’ certificate does not fall within the ambit of the prescribed eligibility criteria.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner, while submitting his online application form pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.12.2024, did not opt for the “Outstanding Sports Person” category. The selection process, being governed by the terms of the advertisement, binds all candidates equally and any deviation therefrom would result in arbitrariness and prejudice to other candidates who have applied in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

8. The contention of the petitioner that he could not opt for the said category due to inadvertent mistake or lack of clarity in the online portal does not inspire confidence, particularly in absence of any cogent material to substantiate such plea. The adver