Order : 1. Petitioner herein, aspirant to become a Safai Karamchari, inter alia, seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or direction commanding the respondents to call for the record of entire lottery process qua handicapped candidates and consider his candidature for appointment to the said post pursuant to advertisement dated 13.04.2018. 2. Briefly speaking, the relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are that Respondent No.1 issued an advertisement dated 13.04.2018 for 184 posts of Safai Karamchari, stating that selection would be done through a lottery system. Certain posts were reserved for handicapped candidates. The petitioner, a 45% locomotor-disabled person, applied for the said post in the handicapped category. The lottery results, published online, wherein 62 seats were kept reserved with 22 applications received. All of whom were selected. However, the petitioner's name was missing. He filed an RTI on 04.09.2018. Later, he filed a complaint on the Rajasthan Sampark Portal on 02.10.2018, but no response came forth. Hence, this petition. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the case record. 4. First and foremost, conceded position herein is that the selection process was to be carried out as per the criteria laid down in the advertisement and the documents to be submitted by the candidates were to be as per the Heading “List of Documents to be Attached with the Application Form”, English translation of which, reads as follows:- “List of Documents to be Attached with the Application Form: 1. A certified copy of the age-related proof/birth certificate indicating the date of birth. 2. A work experience certificate issued by a competent authority (if applicable). Explanation: Competent authority refers to the Deputy Commissioner for municipal corporations, the Commissioner/ Executive Officer for municipal councils and municipalities, the head of department for contract employees in central/state government offices (with the contractor’s certificate countersigned by the department head), the office head for autonomous and semi-government institutions and undertakings, and the office head for placement agencies (with the proprietor’s certificate countersigned by the office head). 3. A notarized affidavit in the prescribed format declaring that the applicant has submitted only one application in a single urban body, along with an affidavit stating that the applicant has not had more than two children after June 1, 2002. 4. 3. A notarized affidavit in the prescribed format declaring that the applicant has submitted only one application in a single urban body, along with an affidavit stating that the applicant has not had more than two children after June 1, 2002. 4. An original character certificate from two reputable individuals, issued within the last six months, who have known the applicant for at least three years and are not relatives. 5. A certified copy of the caste certificate issued by a competent authority for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Economically Weaker Section/Other Backward Class/Most Backward Class. 6. A certified copy of the domicile certificate, duly issued by a competent authority, in case the applicant is a resident of Rajasthan. 7. A certified copy of the marriage registration certificate, if married. 8. A certified copy of the death certificate of the husband, in case of widowhood. 9. A certified copy of the proof/certificate of separation or divorce, in case of a dissolved marriage/divorce. 10. A certified copy of relevant certificates for reservation or age relaxation. 11. A postal order/bank demand draft of the prescribed application fee amount.” A perusal of the above, clearly reveals that qua the work experience all that was required to be given was a certificate by the candidate, which of course, was subject to verification. There was no proforma either mentioned in the said heading and/or even published alongwith the advertisement to be submitted by the candidates. 5. However, it appears that subsequently, the respondents decided to introduce a particular proforma as contained at Annexure-R/2/1 appended with the reply. There was no proforma either mentioned in the said heading and/or even published alongwith the advertisement to be submitted by the candidates. 5. However, it appears that subsequently, the respondents decided to introduce a particular proforma as contained at Annexure-R/2/1 appended with the reply. In para No.2 of the reply following stand has been taken qua the aforesaid proforma:- “That at the very outset, it is most humbly submitted that so far as the candidature of the petitioner is concerned, the application form of the petitioner was scrutinized and at the time of scrutiny of the same, it was found that the petitioner although submitted the certificate of his disability along with experience certificate issued by one Hari Manav Parmarth Gaushala Samiti but however, the affidavit for declaring the said experience certificate to be correct was not submitted and apart from this, the OBC certificate submitted by the petitioner was dated 10.06.2015 which was not the latest one and as such, in such circumstances, since, the petitioner failed to submit the complete documents in support of his candidature and eligibility, the application form of the petitioner was rejected as being defective and his name was not included in the lottery process. The copy of the draft performa of affidavit which was required to be submitted in support of experience certificate is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R/2/1. In such circumstances, since, the application form itself was rejected on account of same being defective, the petitioner has rightly not been included in the lottery process and his candidature has rightly been rejected and as such, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.” 6. The reply does not mention anywhere as to whether the said proforma was individually conveyed to all the candidates or it was published in any newspaper or it was handed over in person as and when the candidates went to apply for the post in question. All that has been stated is that the candidates were required to submit the said proforma. 7. The approach adopted by the respondents cannot be countenanced, as candidates are not supposed to know on their own as to what additional document is required to be given by them, when an exhaustive list has already been given in the advertisement. 8. All that has been stated is that the candidates were required to submit the said proforma. 7. The approach adopted by the respondents cannot be countenanced, as candidates are not supposed to know on their own as to what additional document is required to be given by them, when an exhaustive list has already been given in the advertisement. 8. Moreover, what has to be borne in mind is that it is a post of Safai Karamchari and many of the candidates are illiterate and also not internet savvy even if such a proforma was put on the website of the Municipality, it was not for the candidates to have known about the same unless they were intimated either individually or at the time of filing of application they were handed over the proforma after taking a receipt thereof with an undertaking that they have to submit the same prior to their appointment letter being issued in case they are successful in the draw of lots. None of it is borne out either from the pleadings or from the advertisement. 9. In the premise, the presumption has to be drawn against the respondents that the aforesaid proforma was completely an afterthought and was not insisted upon at the time of advertisement. 10. Vide an interim order dated 04.10.2019, this Court had made the entire selection process of Safai Karamchari subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. I am of the view that, at this stage, instead of passing any drastic directions for conducting the entire draw of lots of the Safai Karamcharis all over again, suffice to meet the ends of justice and balance the equities that the claim of the petitioner be rather accepted for his appointment as Safai Karamchari in the Physically Handicapped category. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed that upon verification of his medical certificate as well as his OBC certificate and other documents including the work certificate, in case, the same are found to be genuine, he shall be accorded benefit of appointment within a period of 30 days from the date the petitioner approaches the respondents with a web-print of the instant order. 11. 11. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner did not participate in the draw of lots, and therefore, it may appear to be unfair that without participating in the draw of lots, he is being given benefit by virtue of the mandamus of this Court of being appointed on the post. Such are the vagaries of the litigation that sometimes, it results in fortuitous benefits, in favour of the candidates as is the case herein coupled with the fact that petitioner deserves humanitarian outlook being 45% disabled person as is borne out from his medical certificate. In any case, it transpires that the number of posts reserved in Physically Handicapped category out numbered the actual number of Physically Handicapped applicants. 12. Petitioner shall be accorded seniority and notional benefits with effect from the same date when the other candidates were appointed without any financial benefits on the principle of "no work, no pay." 13. In the parting, I may also hasten to add here that the argument of the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had given the OBC certificate of year 2015, and therefore, the same cannot be considered, is also insignificant in the light of sub- clause (5) under the Heading “List of Documents to be Attached with the Application Form” already reproduced hereinabove, where it is not stated that only those certificates, which are issued within one year prior to the cut-off date shall be considered. 14. In the absence of candidates being aware of the same, they were not in a position to comply with such a mandate which is sought to be imposed only in the course of arguments on the basis of reply filed in the petition and not pursuant to the same being mandatory by virtue of the advertisement and/or otherwise. In case there is any such requirement to be followed as per the applicable rules, it was open to the Municipality to make it part of the advertisement and in the absence thereof all that can be done at this stage is that the petitioner be given an opportunity to submit fresh OBC certificate so as to ascertain his current status, if he belongs to the OBC category or not. 15. In case, the petitioner fails to submit a valid certificate of OBC, his category will be treated as General Category. 16. 15. In case, the petitioner fails to submit a valid certificate of OBC, his category will be treated as General Category. 16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.