[2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 375/2025 Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj Son Of Shri Jay Lal, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of B2/301, Jeevan Ashray Lic Flats Plot No. 2, Sector 6, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Food And Consumer Affairs Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj, appellant present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG assisted by Ms. Sara Parveen, Ms. Divya Rathore & Mr. Ashutosh Udawat HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 14/05/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj, appellant appears in person. 3. The submission of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge fell in grave error of law in not granting the relief, as sought in the writ petition. According to him, even though the terms and conditions of advertisement do not allow any correction/modification in the preference, in appropriate cases, in the interest of justice and that the petitioner/appellant was highly meritorious, such correction ought to be permitted. He would also submit that though application for correction in writing was submitted on 03.02.2025, even before that he had been orally [2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-375/2025] requesting the higher authorities, at the helm of affairs, to allow him to correct the application to change his preference. Denial of change of preference has adversely affected the merits of the selection. He submits that in other examinations for various posts conducted by the Public Service Commission and in various examination agencies, change of preference is usually permitted at various stages of selection process and therefore, there was no reason for the respondents to adopt a rigid rule of restricting change of preference once it has been submitted. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs Vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, AIR 2023 SC 1371 and Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.1 of 2024), decided on 02.01.2024. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on advance copy, would submit that the appellant’s option to change preference was not permissible in view of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the procedure of selection prescribed in the advertisement. It is his submission that the appellant’s request for change of preference was neither permissible nor justifiable as it was not an inadvertent error and he is not a rustic person. According to him, it was an afterthought after declaration of the result of the written examination. 5. We are of the view that the relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition has rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Undeniably, the terms and conditions of the advertisement clearly stated that the preference submitted by a candidate shall not be allowed to be changed. The appellant had full notice and [2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-375/2025] knowledge that once he submits the application, preference will not be allowed to be changed. If he had any grievance with such rule, he could have challenged the validity of such terms and conditions of the advertisement, but he chose to participate in the process of selection. The submission that oral requests were made to the authorities to allow the appellant to change his preference is neither here nor there. There is no material on record to show that any such request was made by the appellant prior to 03.02.2025. 6. It is vividly clear that the appellant chose to change his preference only after declaration of the result of the written examination. It is a matter of record that the advertisement was issued on 09.11.2024; 20.12.2024 was the last date for filling the application; written examination was held on 11.01.2025 and the result was declared on 30.01.2025. It is only after declaration of the result of the written examination that the appellant came out with an application on 03.02.2025 seeking change of his preference. Even thereafter, he did not file any petition but quietly appeared in the interviews which were held on 18.02.2025 and 21.02.2025. On 07.03.2025, final result was declared. It is only thereafter that the appellant filed the writ petition which came to be ultimately dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Reliance placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye (supra) and Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) is misconceived, both on law as well as on facts. There is nothing in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye (supra) that a candidate would be entitled to change his [2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-375/2025] preference until final list is prepared. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court deals with issues pertaining to challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. 8. While deciding the issue in hand, in exercise of power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that for appointment of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission, the appointment shall be made on the basis of performance in written test consisting of two papers as per the scheme laid down therein. That direction by itself, without anything more, cannot be read as a mandate that the selection procedure must necessarily contain a window for change/correction/modification with regard to preference while submitting an application. 9. The other decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) does not apply in the case of the appellant and the same is distinguishable on facts as well. That, on facts, was a case where a person residing in a remote village, had to take the services of a cyber cafe for submission of a form and while filling the form, due to typographical mistake, the date of birth was incorrectly recorded. It was observed that any correction in the date of birth, later on, would not have any impact on the merits of the selection. On those facts, their Lordships in the Supreme Court allowed correction holding that the petitioner therein could not be penalised for insignificant error which made [2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-375/2025] no difference in the ultimate result. It was highlighted that errors of such kind which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or willful suppression. It was held that an error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process and ought to be ignored. The aforesaid decision does not come to the aid of the petitioner/appellant. The appellant is not a rustic villager. He retired from a very high post in the insurance services. The preference is not a typographical mistake which can be said to be an act of inadvertent mistake. Every candidate who has submitted his application is presumed to exercise his preference carefully and thoughtfully and not by way of mistake. 10. We would prefer to draw an inference that the change of option was not actuated by disclosure of any inadvertent error but was an afterthought. Had it been an inadvertent error, a person of ordinary prudence would have immediately submitted an application. The appellant however did not choose to do that. He participated in the process of selection and it is only when the result of written examination was declared that he poised himself to a convenience that would help him in getting selected as a Member of State Forum, whereas his preference was for selection/appointment as Member of the District Forum. 11. For yet another weighty reason, as noticed by the learned Single Judge, the prayer made by the appellant cannot be allowed. It is well settled legal position, as enumerated in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.2634/2013), that the process of selection and terms and conditions cannot be allowed to be changed/altered [2025:RJ-JP:20274-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-375/2025] midway after the game has begun. The advertisement, in unequivocal words, had clearly provided that preference once submitted will not be allowed to be changed. Except in very exceptional cases, one of which had been noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra), if a candidate or candidates are allowed to change their preference, the process of selection itself would be vitiated as it would be behind the back of all such candidates who have appeared in the examination process. 12. The submission that in some other examinations, there is a window provided for making changes/corrections/modifications in the application forms perhaps could be a ground to challenge as soon as the advertisement was issued. This having not been done, a candidate who has participated in the process of selection and even appeared in the written examination also, cannot be allowed to challenge the process of selection at such an advanced stage. On facts, it is not a case of typographical mistake or inadvertent mistake. 13. We have also been informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant has been selected as the Member of the District Forum. 14. In the result, no case for interference is made out. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/37