JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, C.J. - D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.519 of 2019 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 508 of 2019 Issue notice to the respondents. 2. Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) appeals the judgment of the learned Single Judge, rejecting its review petition. 3. The brief facts are that the respondents (writ petitioners) had claimed that they were ministerial employees entitled to 12.5% horizontal reservation, for recruitment to the post of Junior Accountant in the State of Rajasthan in its various departments. The writ-petitioners were not essentially public servants engaged in any department of the State of Rajasthan but rather employees of electricity distribution companies (DISCOM) i.e. companies set up under the Electricity Act, 2003, governed and tasked with the distribution of electricity. Their contention was that the State of Rajasthan had a major stake in shareholding of those entities, which entitled them to be treated as ministerial employees under the State. This contention was accepted in a Single Bench judgment in Surendra Kumar Vyas & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7239/2017, decided on 18.12.2017). That judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench on 26.04.2018. 4. The respondent Chandan Mal Maru was one amongst the four writ-petitioners (the others being Rajendra Singh, Pawan Vyas & Vikram Singh) who approached the Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12003/2017. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 05.02.2018 by a learned Single Judge. 5. The RPSC claiming an error on the face of the record (as far as respondent Chandan Mal Maru is concerned), preferred review proceedings being S.B. Writ Review No.259/2018. It was contended that the respondent (C.M. Maru) never claimed the status of a public servant in the relevant column of the form filled in by the candidates, either originally or even after representations were sought from the candidates in response to separate public notices issued on 16.04.2015 and 10.08.2016. It was contended that the respondent (C.M. Maru) never claimed the status of a public servant in the relevant column of the form filled in by the candidates, either originally or even after representations were sought from the candidates in response to separate public notices issued on 16.04.2015 and 10.08.2016. The learned Single Judge after issuing notice and hearing Counsel for the parties, concluded that the case of respondent Chandan Mal Maru was not different from others; he too was an employee of the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and could validly claim 12.5% reservation on account of doubts created by the ambiguous nature of clarifications/public notices issued. 6. In the review petition, it is urged on behalf of the RSPC that in the relevant form, the respondent Chandan Mal Maru unlike Pawan Vyas never claimed reservation. In support of this submission, a copy of the form is relied upon. It is submitted that in the case of Pawan Vyas, one of the writ-petitioners, the original application clearly sought reservation, though he was also an employee of DISCOM (Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited). It was submitted that Pawan Vyas, however, made a representation for correction of his status, after the first public notice was issued (seeking amendments or corrections in the application forms by the candidates) on 16.04.2015. In the case of respondent Chandan Mal Maru, however no such representation was made within the time prescribed (i.e. the last date being 15.06.2015). 7. It is submitted that similarly, Chandan Mal Maru, did not care to file a representation within the time prescribed in the second public notice calling for correction of the application form, issued on 10.08.2016. According to this public notice, the representations for corrections or rectifications could be received in two weeks between 11.08.2016 and 25.08.2016, (online) and thereafter, by mail/post, not later than 01.10.2016. The respondent's representation was however received on 14.11.2016. By then, the public examination had concluded on 04.10.2016. 8. It was submitted that in these circumstances, the review petition had to be allowed and the learned Single Judge fell into error in not considering that in somewhat similar circumstances in Narendra Singh Rathore vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.365/2018, decided on 09.05.2018), the Court had declined the relief. 9. Mr. 8. It was submitted that in these circumstances, the review petition had to be allowed and the learned Single Judge fell into error in not considering that in somewhat similar circumstances in Narendra Singh Rathore vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.365/2018, decided on 09.05.2018), the Court had declined the relief. 9. Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent urged that this Court should not take a view different from one taken in the original judgment and that it ought to be left undisturbed, keeping it in line with the main judgment of the Division Bench in Surendra Kumar Vyas(supra). 10. It is submitted that although the respondent Chandan Mal Maru gave his representations later, nevertheless he fell in the same category as Pawan Vyas and the other two petitioners as he was employed by the DISCOM, identically like them. Since he belongs to the same class, omissions on his part (to fill the form or make a representation in time) could not make any difference. 11. It was next argued that even if for some reason, the Court were to distinguish the facts of the two kinds of cases, nevertheless, the respondent had a justifiable reason as he entertained bona fide doubts with respect to the corrections that could be validly carried out pursuant to the public notices issued on 16.04.2015 and 10.08.2016. Therefore, he sought clarifications through the Right to Information applications. The answers received were ambiguous. In these circumstances, the relief granted by the Court, it is urged by the Counsel, should not be denied to the respondent. 12. To this Court, it appears that a common approach was adopted by the learned Single Judge, in granting relief while following Surendra Kumar Vyas (supra). The available materials show that Pawan Vyas at the very first instance claimed 12.5% reservation as a ministerial candidate, however, immediately after the public notice was issued on 16.04.2015, he sought and was allowed rectification by a representation where he clearly stated that he was entitled to reservation and yet deleted reference to it in the form as he was asked to do so. In the case of the respondent Chandan Mal Maru, however, at no relevant time within the given time i.e. neither in the original form nor even within the time prescribed by the first and second public notice, did he categorically state that he was entitled to the reservation. Even in the form filled, he claimed that he was a general category candidate i.e. in other words, did not seek reservation specifically. The claim made by him was after conclusion of the examination. If the respondent's argument were to prevail, the peculiar circumstances which may prevail that every candidate would be a subjective factor which the Court would have to weigh in and consider while granting relief. 13. Whilst it is true that generally speaking he belongs to the same category, yet at the same time the Court has to be cognizant of the fact that at no relevant time did he claim the reservation in question. He along with the others were armed in their resolve to secure reservation which ultimately the Court granted in its judgment, on the strength of the decision in Surendra Kumar Vyas (supra). He approached the Court for relief after the judgment. 14. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent was not entitled to the relief granted in the main judgment. The learned Single Judge, therefore, clearly erred in disallowing the review petition. Consequently, the impugned common judgment is set aside so far as respondent Chandan Mal Maru is concerned; as a result his writ petition stands dismissed. 15. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.