SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13914

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Anand Sharma, J
Ranjeeta Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7846/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Kashyap

A candidate cannot be permitted to change their claimed category in a recruitment application after the declaration of results if they failed to utilize the prescribed rectification windows provided by the selection board, as it would disrupt the fairness and integrity of the selection process.

Headnote:(A) Recruitment process - Correction in category - Petitioner applied in ‘General Widow’ category instead of ‘EWS Widow’ - Claimed human error/lack of computer knowledge - Advertisement provided two distinct windows for rectification: 7 days post-application deadline and a post-examination period - Petitioner failed to utilize either window - Repeatedly appeared in proceedings under the incorrect category without objection - Doctrine of estoppel applied - Held: Category cannot be changed at a belated stage after result declaration - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 7-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, seeking employment as a Class-IV employee, inadvertently submitted her application form listing her category as ‘General Widow’ instead of ‘EWS Widow’ due to assistance from a third party. Despite having opportunities to rectify the category as prescribed in the advertisement’s rules regarding One Time Registration (OTR) and online application amendments, the petitioner failed to do so before or after the written examination. She only raised the issue after the declaration of results.

Findings of Court:
The court found that clear mechanisms for correction were outlined in the advertisement, which the petitioner failed to utilize. Relying on settled precedents, the court held that a candidate cannot be permitted to switch categories after participating in the selection process, especially when the discrepancy was known or discoverable before the examination.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to change her category in the application form after the declaration of results, despite having missed the prescribed windows for correction.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate who participates in a recruitment process under a specific category, knowing or having the opportunity to correct errors via established mechanisms, is estopped from seeking a category change after the result is declared to their disadvantage.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges denial of category correction post-examination due to alleged clerical error. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. strict adherence to advertisement rectification windows and prohibition of late category changes. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

Order

01/05/2026

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, she 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 verbally requested for 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'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. ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ vius vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku djkuk pkgrk gS rks vkosnu izkfIr dh vafre fnukad ds i'pkr~ 07 fnol ds Hkhrj fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd 300@& :i;s nds j vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku dj ldrk gSA vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vH;FkhZ QksVks] gLrk{kj ,oa mu lwpukvksa dks ifjofrZr ugha dj ik,xk tks mlus OTR ds le; ntZ dh gS ;Fkk uke] firk dk uke] tUefrfFk] fyax bR;kfnA 'ks"k izfof'kf"V;ksa esa la'kks/ku fd;k tk ldsxkA 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk esa vH;F

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top