Back
E-Mitra Operator's Error: Rejects Candidate's Late Category Change Plea
In a significant ruling underscoring the importance of timely corrections in recruitment processes, the dismissed an appeal by a candidate who sought to change her category from OBC to General after the declaration of results. The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sandeep Shah held that once a candidate opts for a particular category at the threshold, that choice binds her at every subsequent stage.
Case Background: A Mistake Discovered Too Late
Munni Devi, a resident of Jodhpur, applied for the post of Class-IV employee advertised on . While filling the online application through an E-Mitra operator, her category was mistakenly entered as “OBC” instead of “General”. Though she belongs to the General category and claimed widow status, the application reflected her as “OBC Widow”.
Upon receiving the admit card, Munni Devi noticed the error and claims she approached the Board before the written examination requesting correction. However, no rectification was made, and she appeared for the exam held on . After results were published on , she secured 72.9512 marks after normalization—well above the General Widow cut-off of 32.6964. Yet her name appeared under the OBC Widow category.
She submitted a representation seeking to be considered under the General Widow category, but the Board did not act. The single judge dismissed her writ petition, leading to this appeal.
Arguments: vs. Missed Opportunities
Appellant's Submission: Learned counsel argued that the mistake was purely inadvertent on the part of the E-Mitra operator. The appellant had approached the Board at the earliest opportunity—even before the exam—to correct the category. Depriving her of consideration despite her merit would be and contrary to .
Respondent's Counter: , representing the State and the Selection Board, submitted that the appellant had ample opportunities to rectify the error. The advertisement itself provided a seven-day window after application submission for corrections, and a later press note on allowed candidates to make corrections from . The appellant failed to avail either.
Legal Analysis: Consistency in Status Throughout Selection
The court examined the advertisement's Clause 17, which permitted amendments upon payment of Rs. 300 within seven days, and noted the press note extending a final opportunity in October 2025. Despite being aware of the discrepancy, the appellant did not use these windows.
Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in , the bench observed that a selection process is an . A candidate who qualifies at the preliminary stage in one category cannot alter that status at a later stage. The court also relied on , which held that failing to claim at the initial stage bars claiming it later.
The division bench further referred to its own decision in , reinforcing that once a category is filled and the candidate does not rectify it within the allowed period, no right to amendment arises afterward.
Key Observations: Waiting for Results Undermines Claim
The court made a crucial observation about the appellant's conduct:
“The fact that the appellant waited for the declaration of the result itself reflects that the appellant had purposely chosen not to change the category in the form filled up by her.”
It further noted:
“The status of a candidate in a competitive selection must remain consistent throughout the process; once a candidate opts for a particular category at the threshold, that choice binds her at every subsequent stage. Permitting a would undermine the principle of .”
Court's Decision: Appeal Dismissed
The division bench found no error in the single judge's order. It held that the appellant was given sufficient opportunities—both under the advertisement's Clause 17 and through the press note—to rectify the alleged mistake, but she failed to do so. Consequently, the special appeal was dismissed, along with all pending applications.
This ruling reinforces the principle that candidates must diligently avail correction windows provided during recruitment processes. An , even if genuine, cannot be rectified after results when the candidate had chances to correct it earlier.
