HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 804/2020

in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8900/2019

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Ajmer

Through Its Secretary.

----Appellant

Versus

Yogita Yaduvanshi D/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, Aged About 21 Years,

R/o Talpur, Tehsil Kotkasmi, District Alwar Rajasthan.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. M.F. Baig, Advocate

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Padam Singh Gurjar, Advocate

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Order

19/03/2021

Appellant – Rajasthan Public Service Commission has

filed the appeal challenging the order dated 24.8.2020 passed by

the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the

respondent was allowed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that an

Advertisement was issued on 2.4.2018 for filling up various posts.

As per the terms of the Advertisement, the last date for

submission of online form was 11.5.2018 and any correction in the

application form could be made online from 12.5.2018 till

18.5.2018. As per the Advertisement, it was also specified that no

correction would be allowed off-line. Learned Single Judge fell in

error in permitting the respondent to change the category from

(2 of 6)

[SAW-804/2020]

Most Backward Class (for short ‘MBC’) to Other Backward Class

(for short ‘OBC’) offline after the due date. Learned counsel

further submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in

basing reliance on decision of this Court in the case of Kavita

Choudhary vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High

Court, Jodhpur & Anr., D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.

1700/2017 decided on 1.11.2017, as in Sonal Tyagi vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7840/2019,

decided on 12.7.2019 it had been held that the decision given in

Kavita Choudhary’s case (supra) could not be treated as a binding

precedent. It was also held that the view that no one would be

prejudiced if mistakes are corrected, was not acceptable.

Learned counsel for the appellant has next placed

reliance on Piyush Kaviya & Ors. vs. The Rajasthan Public

Service Commission & Ors., D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.

198/2018 and other connected matters decided on 10.4.2018,

wherein it was held as under:-

“9. As per the Rules of 1999, vide Rule 15, the competitive

examination had two stages. A preliminary examination and a main

examination. Those who qualified at the preliminary examination

were to be short listed and only fifteen times the number of

vacancies to be filled up were to be admitted to the main

examination. The three writ petitioners cleared the preliminary

examination and were issued admit cards for the ensuing main

examination which was scheduled to be held on 28th and 29th

January, 2017. The admit card recorded the name, father’s name as

also the category in which the writ petitioners had applied and there

is no dispute that said particulars in the admit card are correct. Note

No.5 of the admit card which fell for interpretation before the

learned Single Judge provides that the applicant must verify that in

the admit card his name, father’s name, date of birth and category

etc. are correct and if any correction is desired he may submit an

(3 of 6)

[SAW-804/2020]

application to the office of the Commission with a postal order in

sum of 300/-. After the date of the examination no application for

₹

correction shall be entertained.

xxx xxx xxx

12. The stand of the Commission was that Note No.5 in the admit

card did not give any opportunity to make any correction in the on-

line application forms, which correction could be made, as indicated

in the advertisement, only up till 12.00 mid night of 25.7.2016 and

that Note No.5 in the admit card pertained to corrections to be made

in the admit card by amending the same if there was a mismatch

between what was filled up by way