JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondent no.2-Superintendent of Police, District Sikar in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable. In fact, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable, but in the OMR sheet that has been filled in at the time of examination, he did not indiate his category as OBC and left it blank. It is contended that it cannot be a reason for the respondents not to evaluate the answer key of the petitioner and the respondents ought to have consider the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel cited the judgement of this Court in Prem Singh Jadaun v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2868/2011 decided on 14.12.2001 wherein the candidate has not indicated his gender in the application form and left the column blank, the Court on consideration of clause 9(xi) of the advertisement held the same to be directory and not mandatory. The matter was taken to the division bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Prem Singh Jadaun decided on 3.10.2012 , which has upheld the judgement of single bench with the following observations: "We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. In our opinion, once correct gender was disclosed in the OMR/answer sheet, defect, if any, in the application form was of trivial nature and was not such so as to reject the candidature itself. Once correct gender was before the respondents, application form of the petitioner could not have been cancelled. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find the order passed by Single Bench to be appropriate. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 11611/2012 is also dismissed. Civil Misc. Application No. 95/2012 is disposed off." 2. It is contended that the similar view was reiterated in the case of Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14480/2011 decided on 20.2.2013 whereby the writ petition was allowed and respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner and if found in merit, grant him appointment, subject to other eligibility. 3. Dr. 3. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, learned Additional Government Counsel though opposed the writ petition, but perusal of clause 9(xi) shows that it is not indicated therein that in the OMR sheet non-mentioning of category to which a candidate belongs, could be a reason for non-evaluation of the OMR sheet. This would not be such a lacuna because the petitioner has indicated his category in the application form. 4. In view of above facts and the judgement of division bench in Prem Singh Jadaun, supra, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to evaluate the OMR sheet of the petitioner and if on evaluation he is found to have secured more marks than the cut off of OBC category and otherwise found suitable, grant him appointment within three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******