1. The lawyers are not working due to abstention from work.
2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:
“A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, any order denying the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Lower Division Clerk for District
Courts in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.02.2017 (Annex.3) against the category of OBC Non-Creamy Layer may kindly be quashed and
set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly bedirected to consider the actual category of the petitioner i.e. OBC
NonCreamy Layer instead of OBC Creamy Layer and permit the petitioner in the further selection process for the post of Lower Division Clerk for
District Courts in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.02.2017.
C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly bedirected to afford the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lower
Division Clerk as per marks secured by her in pursuance of the advertisement 18.02.2017, if otherwise she stands in merit against the category of
OBC Non Creamy Layer with all consequential benefits.
D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly bedirected to not to deny the selection and appointment and not to reject the
candidature of the petitioner on the ground of filling of wrong category i.e.
OBC Creamy Layer instead of OBC Non-Creamy Layer.
E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court maydeem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
F. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.â€
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is seeking appointment for the post of LDC in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.02.2017. The
petitioner participated in the related selection process and had secured 160 marks in the written examination and the last Female OBC selected
candidate had secured 157 marks in the written examination. The petitioner by mistake wrongly clicked the option as OBC Creamy Layer.
4. The petitioner present in person states that her case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court
at Jaipur Bench in Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court & Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No.1700/2017) decided on 01.11.2017, which reads as under:
“D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.41684/2017:
For the reasons stated in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the same is allowed.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.1700/2017:
1. Learned counsel for the respondents appears on advance copy of the writ-appeal being served.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. On 18.02.2017 an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of LDC in different District Judgeships and District Legal Services
Authority. The advertisement cautioned the applicants to be careful while submitting their applications on-line and ensure that the form was correctly
filled up.
4. The appellant claims to be a member of an Other Backward Class and while filling up the on-line form she wrongly clicked at the option “OBC
Creamy Layerâ€. This made her disentitled to the benefit of being treated as a candidate in the OBC category, for the reason a member of an Other
Backward Class, if falling within creamy layer, would not entitle her to the benefit of reservation.
5. When the result was declared the appellant found that she had secured 158 marks in the written examination and the last female OBC candidate
selected had secured 157 marks. She then realised her mistake.
6. Vide impugned decision dated 27.10.2017 the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that being an educated person, the appellant ought to have
been careful.
7. To err is human. We do not note the second part: To forgive is divine.
8. Mistakes can be of two kinds. First kind would be where nobody is affected by a mistake. The second is where a third party is affected by a
mistake.
9. The difference in the two mistakes would be that whereas rectification of the first would cause no prejudice, rectification of the second would
cause a prejudice.
10. We find in the decisions dated 31.07.2013 in D.B.S.A.W No.875/2012, State of Rajasthan Vs. Datar Singh, dated 11.10.2017 in S.B.C.W.P
No.7159/2017, Dinesh Kumar Mahawar Vs. RPSC & Ors., dated 27.01.2017 in S.B.C.W.P No.906/2017, Shimala Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,
dated 24.11.2016 in S.B.C.W.P No.15654/2016, Sapana Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P.(Civil) No.3721/2017,
Arkshit Kapoor Vs. Union of India & Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P. (Civil) No.11642/2016, Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors., passed
by this Court and the Delhi High Court, the consistent view taken is that a bonafide mistake which does not affect a third party right should be allowed
to be cured.
11. We dispose of the appeal directing that the appellant be treated as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate and we permit her to participate in the
further selection process. Needless to state the respondents would be entitled to verify the certificate submitted by the appellant.
12. Being informed that the type test is scheduled for 02.11.2017 we direct that the appellant be issued an Admit Card entitling her to take the type
test tomorrow i.e. 02.11.2017. The Admit Card be issued today itself.
13. The appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 and allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant.â€
5. This Court finds that the facts of the present case is squarely covered by aforequoted precedent law.
6. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in terms
of the aforementioned adjudication by the Hon’ble Division Bench at Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court within a period of 30 days from
today. Resultantly, the petitioner shall be considered as OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate and she shall be permitted to participate in the Type Test
and she shall be considered for appointment, if she is otherwise eligible and falling in merit.
