Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 977 (RAJ)

Sarita Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2018-04-11

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief’s: "1. Verbal order of the respondents dated 29.05.2017 by which the respondent no.2 denied for making a correction in the martial status and category of the petitioner in her application form may kindly be declared, illegal, arbitrary, unjust. 2. The respondents may kindly be directed to make a correction in the category and marital status of the petitioner in the application as Widow OBC Female. 3. The respondents may kindly be directed to provide the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level I as per her merit while considering her category as female in Widow of OBC category will all consequential benefits. 4. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner participated in the selection process for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-I arising out of the advertisement dated 06.07.2016. The petitioner got married on 20.02.2007 and her husband expired on 28.05.2007 i.e. about three months after marriage. The death certificate, as issued on 04.06.2008 Annex.4 of the writ petition, by the competent authority, reflects the said factual position. The petitioner applied in the category of Widow OBC Female, but inadvertently, due to silly mistake on the part of the computer operator of E-mitra, in the category as well as in the column of marital status, in the application form, the petitioner mentioned herself as married and in the next column, she mentioned the name of her husband as Late Rakesh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that in the application form itself, the petitioner had mentioned her category to be Widow OBC Female and had also mentioned her husband as Late Rakesh but for a bonafide mistake in the marital status, the petitioner's marital status has been mentioned as 'married'. Thereafter, a list of selected candidates came to be published by the respondents wherein the name of the petitioner did not find place, particularly in the category of Widow OBC Female, despite securing the required merit in the said category. 4. Thereafter, a list of selected candidates came to be published by the respondents wherein the name of the petitioner did not find place, particularly in the category of Widow OBC Female, despite securing the required merit in the said category. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Suman Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7168/2017) decided on 08.12.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Heera Bal Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14394/2017) decided on 20.11.2017. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Jaishri Trivedi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10711/2017) decided on 16.11.2017. 7. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017), decided on 01.11.2017. The said judgment 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 Layer". 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. 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." 8. 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." 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly refuted the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that any mistake committed by the petitioner shall definitely have an impact on her candidature and she cannot be permitted to rectify the same at this belated stage, particularly, when the selection process is at the verge of completion. Learned counsel for the respondent has further stated that any consideration of the petitioner, in the manner sought for, shall be detrimental to the cause of the selection process as the selection process has virtually culminated into finality, and admittedly, the petitioner had filled wrong information in the respective column, where her marital status was reflected as 'Married'. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court of Jaipur Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Bharti Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17840/2016) decided on 04.05.2017. 10. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner, who was seeking recruitment as Teacher Grade-III Level-I arising out of the advertisement dated 06.07.2016, had filled her form as Widow OBC Female. This Court also finds that the petitioner had mentioned name of her husband, in the application form, as Late Rakesh. This Court also takes note of the fact that the petition became widow within three months of her marriage. Although the required information was given by the petitioner in the application form, but inadvertently, in the column pertaining to marital status, she has mentioned herself as 'married' instead of 'widow', which on the face of it, appears to be a bonafide mistake, on the part of the petitioner. Although the required information was given by the petitioner in the application form, but inadvertently, in the column pertaining to marital status, she has mentioned herself as 'married' instead of 'widow', which on the face of it, appears to be a bonafide mistake, on the part of the petitioner. The precedent law as referred by the petitioner is absolutely applicable in the present fact situation, as in the said judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kavita Choudhary it has been held that, to err is human, and further, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the appeal, allowing the writ petition while considering all the relevant case laws and holding that a bonafide mistake ought to be permitted to be cured. 11. In light of the peculiar facts as well as the aforequoted judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider and treat the petitioner as belonging to the Widow OBC Female category, and if she is otherwise eligible and meritorious then appropriate appointment shall be given to her on the post in question within a period of 30 days from today.