DASHRATH SINGH S/O SHRI SHIVLAL GURJAR v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/12841/2025 · 2025-08-27
Anand Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28143 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28143 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:34152] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12841/2025 Dashrath Singh S/o Shri Shivlal Gurjar, Aged About 42 years, R/o Village Pipalkhera, Post Gagawana, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Directorate of Technical Education (Training Wing), R/o W-6, Gaurav Path, Jodhpur.
3. Secretary, Department of Skill, Employment and Entrepreneurship, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, through its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Raghunandan Sharma Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment 27/08/2025
1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process of Junior Instructor (Employability Skills), however, his candidature has been rejected on the ground that he could not produce the document pertaining to the category of General EWS Ex- Servicemen at the time of documents verification. Learned counsel submits that assuming the petitioner could not submit any document pursuant to his request for treating him as General EWS Ex-Servicemen category candidate, yet under these
[2025:RJ-JP:34152] (2 of 3) [CW-12841/2025] circumstances, he could have been considered in the category of General Ex-Servicemen.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that merely making bonafide clerical error while submitting online application form to the extent of filling the category in the relevant column, cannot be said to be fatal and at the time of document verification, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to correct his category.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. A perusal of advertisement dated 05.03.2024 would reflect that the process of correction in online application form has been given therein, however, even the change of category is not permitted while making correction in the application form. In the instant case, the petitioner filled in his application form on 05.04.2024 and after declaration of result as well as rejection of his candidature vide letter dated 06.08.2025, he cannot be allowed to make any prayer with regard to change of category. Such a request is an after thought and also against the scheme of examination as reflected in the advertisement dated 05.03.2024.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the respondents are not considering the petitioner in the category of General EWS Ex-Servicemen, then they may consider the petitioner in General Unreserved category.
6. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation before the respondents to the extent of aforesaid prayer and the respondents shall decided the same by passing speaking order
[2025:RJ-JP:34152] (3 of 3) [CW-12841/2025] within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of such representation.
7. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
8. Stay application also stands dismissed.
(ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /49