Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Krishan Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:148) on 2 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:148]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8258/2023
Krishan Kumar S/o Shri Pokar Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Rugoniyon Ka Tala, Bhimda, Tehsil Baitu District
Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Agriculture Management Institution Premises, Durgapura,
Jaipur Through Secretary.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary.
Mr. Mahendra.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG assisted by
Mr. Sandeep Soni (R/1 & R/2).
Mr. Priyanshu Gopa on behalf of
Mr. Vinit Sanadhya (R/3).
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
02/01/2025
1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the
respondents to permit him to change his category from OBC to
OBC (Sportsman) in his application form and thereafter consider
his candidature based on his merit. Respondent No.3 - Rajasthan
Staff Selection Board issued an advertisement dated 16.12.2022
(Annex.1), inviting applications for the post of Upper Primary
School Teacher (General/Special Education) Level II, Class VI to
VIII. It was stated that 2% of the vacancies were reserved for
outstanding sports persons.
[2025:RJ-JD:148] (2 of 4) [CW-8258/2023]
2 The petitioner submitted his online application as OBC (NCL),
but due to an error by the e-Mitra operator, the column for
"Outstanding Sports Person" was filled with "No" instead of "Yes".
The petitioner was unaware of the mistake in the application form
and would have requested a correction had he known. He holds a
certificate of participation in the 37th National Senior Kyorugi and
10th National Poomsae Taekwondo Championship, 2018, where he
competed in the Rajasthan State Team. On 29.05.2023, while
checking for his wife's examination result, the petitioner
discovered the mistake. He then approached respondent No.3 on
02.06.2023, requesting correction of his category from OBC to
OBC (Sportsman), but to no avail. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The stand taken by respondent No.3 - Staff Selection Board
in their reply, in sum and substance, is that in order to obviate any
inadvertence on the part of a candidate, a public notice dated
02.03.2023 (Annex.R.3/1) was issued for the benefit of all
candidates and was duly displayed on the official website. The
notice stipulated that, in case, any candidate wished to make any
amendments to their online application form, this could be done
within the permissible time period, i.e., from 03.03.2023 to
12.03.2023, subject to the nominal payment of Rs. 300/-. Despite
the notice, neither did the petitioner opt to change his category,
nor did he ever make any complaint regarding the admit card
issued to him. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. At the very threshold, I am constrained to observe that the
case pleaded by the petitioner appears to be a complete
afterthought, and I am in agreement with the stand taken in the
reply opposing the petition. Despite notice dated 02.03.2023
[2025:RJ-JD:148] (3 of 4) [CW-8258/2023]
(R-3/1), petitioner undertook the written examination, wherein his
category was clearly mentioned as OBC and not as OBC
(Sportsman). He was thus fully aware from the inscription on the
admit card that he was competing in the OBC category and yet
chose to acquiesce to the same. At this stage, he cannot be
allowed to take a diametrically opposite stand, claiming that he
was not aware of not being considered in the OBC (Sportsman)
category.
5. I have had an occasion to render a judgment in somewhat
similar circumstances in the case of Arvind Singh Choudhary
vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11520/2023, decided on 09.02.2024. Relevant excerpts
thereof, being apposite, are reproduced herein below:-
"6. Having seen the above said SB judgment, I am of the
view that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same, as
such a mistake, if at all, has to be based on certain
inadvertence i.e. click of a mouse while using the computer at
the time of filling up the online application form or any other
such mistake, which is by sheer oversight and not deliberate.
7. As already noted hereinabove, it is a case where the
petitioner deliberately orchestrated his candidature as general
category and it is only after the entire selection process is
almost over that he is seeking to change his category. Rules of
the game cannot be changed once the match has begun, trite
law it is. In the premise, the reliance placed by learned counsel
for the petitioner on the aforesaid judgment is completely
misplaced.
8. From the aforesaid, it is thus clear that this is a case
where the petitioner is trying to portray his selection of
category at the time of filling up the online application form as
inadvertent, but the reality is otherwise. It was a deliberate
option of appearing as a general category candidate, perhaps
under the impression that he had a higher probability of being
selected as a general category candidate as against the OBC
category, where the number of posts are much less than in the
general category.
9. Petitioner deliberately filled-up his form in the general
category is also borne out from the fact that subsequently,
when he was issued the admit card to appear in the
examination, the same also clearly stated that the admit card
was for general category. Having seen the admit card, the
petitioner appeared in the examination and was successful in
the written examination. Till then, the petitioner did not make
an issue of so-called inadvertence on his part.
[2025:RJ-JD:148] (4 of 4) [CW-8258/2023]
10. Not only that, it transpires that the respondent - Board
issued a public notice on its website, asking all the candidates
across board that in case there was any grievance qua having
filled up category wrongly by some inadvertence, they could
change the same by paying a nominal fee of Rs.300/-. The
petitioner even at that stage did not opt for change of category.
However, it is only when the document verification was taking
place that he submitted an application i.e. his category be
changed, perhaps to take advantage of his higher marks
compared to his counterparts in OBC category, wherein, no
doubt he would have gained by number of slots in the seniority.
Such a cavalier approach on the part of the petitioner, to say
the least, is highly deprecated."
6. The aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of
the present case. Since the petitioner's case is adversely hit by
the same, I see no reason why the petition should not be
dismissed.
7. It is accordingly so ordered.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
54-Mohan/-
Whether Fit for Reporting - Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
