ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the respondent-Corporation is denying her appointment in spite of appointment order dated 01.09.2018. 2. Fact apropos the present writ petition are that the petitioner was selected as Safai Karmchari in the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) by draw of lots, pursuant to recruitment notification dated 13.04.2018. 3. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner had submitted her application form as per her own category, supported with the requisite caste certificate. However, the firm engaged for the purpose of data entry wrongly filled in her category, due to which, she was kept in the category other than the one to which she belonged. 4. Her name was selected out of the categorywise draw of lots, which was held by the respondent-Corporation. 5. The petitioner was offered appointment in September 2018, without mentioning her category. 6. However, before she could join, the fact that her name rather category had been erroneously fed in the Computer system came to the notice of the respondent - Corporation, therefore, her appointment order dated 01.09.2018 was not given effect to by the respondent-Corporation. 7. Mr. Nikhil Dungawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had correctly filled in her application form with her respective category and the requisite certificate evincing her category, but as no receipt etc. was given, she could not come to know of such discrepancy. He added that the petitioner was neither informed nor made aware of the category in which she was selected. 8. It is the contention of the petitioner that maybe because of technical or inadvertent error at the end of the data entry operator of the respondent - Corporation, the petitioner was listed in wrong category, but the fact remains that the petitioner was selected by draw of lots out of the categories in which her name was kept by the respondent - Corporation itself. 9. It was argued that since, the petitioner had neither misrepresented nor had she filled in her application form wrongly, her selection which have been made on the basis of draw of lots, cannot be set at naught. 10. Mr. 9. It was argued that since, the petitioner had neither misrepresented nor had she filled in her application form wrongly, her selection which have been made on the basis of draw of lots, cannot be set at naught. 10. Mr. Suniel Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation, on the other hand submitted that petitioner cannot dispute the fact that her selection was made by placing her name in the wrong category and since, the error has come to the notice of the respondent- Corporation, they were perfectly justified in not giving effect to the appointment order. 11. It was also argued that simply because her name has been shown in the select list and appointment order has been issued, no vested rights can be said to have been created in her favour, as she was never allowed to join the services. 12. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards an office order dated 23.12.2020, passed in the case of one Baby Goyal and submitted that since the respondent - Corporation itself has considered said petitioner's (Baby Goyal's) case pursuant to order dated 05.10.2018, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15484/2018 (Baby Goyal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), the present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner had bonafidely submitted her application form and it was the fault of the respondent-Corporation or its agency, which had wrongly filled in petitioner's caste particulars in their software/system data. 14. Considering that the selection was on the basis of draw of lots, this Court is of the view that because of the fault of the respondent-Corporation or its agency, the petitioner cannot be scooped out of the list of selected candidates. 15. The process of selection was by way of lottery or draw of lots and the petitioner was selected simply by stroke of luck as opposed to merit. It cannot be said that the petitioner has taken away or trampled upon the rights of candidates of any other category, given that there are 50 candidates from all sorts of categories viz. - ST Male, OBC Male, ST Female, SC Female, Handicap, SC Widow et al. It cannot be said that the petitioner has taken away or trampled upon the rights of candidates of any other category, given that there are 50 candidates from all sorts of categories viz. - ST Male, OBC Male, ST Female, SC Female, Handicap, SC Widow et al. If such petitioner had been wrongly selected, no category in particular has been deprived. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the action of respondents in not giving effect to petitioner's appointment order dated 01.09.2018 is unjust and iniquitous, if not illegal. 17. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 18. The respondent-Director, Local Self Government is directed to constitute a three member committee, which shall consider petitioner's appointment in the proper category, to which she belonged, as has been done in the case of Baby Goyal (supra). 19. In case post(s) in any particular category are unavailable, then the petitioner will be accommodated in other permissible category, of course subject to fulfilling other eligibility criteria. 20. Requisite exercise be done within a period of three months from today and the petitioner be given joining latest by 01.10.2023. Her appointment shall be however notionally reckoned from the date of her appointment order i.e. 01.09.2018. 21. All interlocutory application(s) including stay application stand disposed of.