JUDGMENT Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - Time prayed for is not opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that since, interview for selection on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in pursuance of advertisement dated 05.04.2018, is scheduled for today and hence, an interim relief may be granted to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a member of Most Backward Class applied vide application form dated 07.06.2018 under that category for his appointment on the post of A.En. (Civil) but, inadvertently, he chose the option of MBC Creamy Layer instead of MBC Non-creamy Layer as reflected on the website. Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of press note dated 13.03.2020 issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission inviting applications for change of category, he applied for change of category from MBC Creamy Layer to MBC Non-Creamy Layer but, he was not permitted to do so. He submits that he also approached the Pre-litigation Committee constituted by the respondent for redressal of his grievance on 21.09.2021 but, the same has not been addressed till date. He submits that he has cleared the written examination and hence, he may be permitted provisionally to appear in the interview being conducted today. 2. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has applied under general category and in view of judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.804/2020 decided on 19.03.2021, the petitioner cannot be permitted to change the category after expiry of the prescribed period. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the stay application. 3. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the record. 4. Undeniably, the petitioner has applied under MBC Category and not as a general candidate as is reflected from his application form available on record as Annexure 4. It appears that inadvertently, he applied under MBC Creamy Layer. As admitted by learned counsel for the respondent, under MBC Category, there is no distinction in between creamy/non-creamy layer. In these circumstances, this Court is prima facie satisfied that on account of inadvertent error which does not go to the root of the matter, the petitioner’s substantive right should not be defeated. 5. As admitted by learned counsel for the respondent, under MBC Category, there is no distinction in between creamy/non-creamy layer. In these circumstances, this Court is prima facie satisfied that on account of inadvertent error which does not go to the root of the matter, the petitioner’s substantive right should not be defeated. 5. In view thereof, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview for the post of AEN (Civil) provisionally. It is made clear that appearance of the petitioner in the interview shall not create any equity in his favour and it shall remain subject to decision of the writ petition. 6. List the matter on 05.01.2022 as prayed by learned counsel for the respondent.