[2026:RJ-JP:14272-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5958/2026 Satendra Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Mohan Singh Rathore, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 49, Ram Vihar B, Meenawala, Sirsi Road, Panchyawala, Jaipur-302034 (Group-C). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, North Western Railway, Nwr Headquarters, Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302017. 2. Railway Recruitment Cell Through Chairman, Building No. 4, Second Floor, Opp. Central Railway Hospital, Near Railway Station Second Entry, Jaipur-302006. 3. Ast. Personnel Officer, Railway Recruitment Cell, Building No. 4, Second Floor, Opp. Central Railway Hospital, Near Railway Station Second Entry, Jaipur-302006. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kavita Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/04/2026 1. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved from order dated 09.03.2026 in OA 91/2026 (Jaipur) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur ("CAT"). 2. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that present writ petition may kindly be allowed and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, whereby the order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the learned Tribunal may kindly be quashed and set [2026:RJ-JP:14272-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-5958/2026] aside, with all consequential benefits. It is also prayed that the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 may also be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be allowed to give trials for the selections in pursuance of employment notice no. 1/2025 for the post in the pay level-1 against the vacancy reserved for Basketball (All Rounder) (Men) in NWR, HQ, Jaipur Level and if found fit, he be given appointment along with similarly situated candidates with all consequential benefits, including seniority and pay fixation etc. Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just, proper in the facts and circumstance of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. Cost of the Writ Petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have issued an employment notice for recruitment of sports persons against sports quota in NWR for year 2025-2026. He further submits that the petitioner has also applied for the post reserved for basketball players (men) but inadvertently he has filled "Yes" in the column of serving employee whereas the petitioner is not a serving employee. He further submits that after scrutiny the name of the petitioner was shown in the list of eligible candidates and he was called for trial but was not allowed to give trial. The petitioner has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of filing OA No.40/2026 whereby the Tribunal has directed the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. He further submits that the case of the petitioner was further rejected on 27.02.2026 even after order of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 23.02.2026 and he was forced to file Another OA. 4. Learned counsel further submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2026:RJ-JP:14272-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-5958/2026] (Cvil Appeal No.1/2024) :2024 INSC 2 has already considered identical issue and permitted the candidate where the error was non-essential and non-substantive in nature. He further referred the judgment in case of Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Registrar (Examination) Rajasthan High Court & Others (D.B. SAW No.1700/2017) and submitted that even a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has also permitted for modification and correction in errors. At last, he submits that the Tribunal has committed serious error by dismissing the OA. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner has filled his application and despite opportunity to modify the application form, the petitioner has chosen not to modify the same. He also submits that on the basis of statement made by the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was considered and he has no right to claim correction in the entries made by him at the time of submission of application form. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed an application pursuant to employment notice No. 1/2025 issued by respondent No. 2 for recruitment of sports persons against sports quota (Open Advertisement in various pay-scales in NWR). The petitioner was called for trial after scrutiny of the application form, but was denied trial and the petitioner has filed an original application No. 40/2026 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed on 23.02.2026 with the direction to the respondents to re-examine the case of the applicant in [2026:RJ-JP:14272-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-5958/2026] accordance with law and in light of observation made by the Central Administrative Tribunal. After examination, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 27.02.2026. Aggrieved petitioner has filed OA No. 91/2026, which was dismissed on 09.03.2026 and observation of CAT indicates that a total number of 45 applications were rejected by them and there was no discrimination while rejecting the application. 8. The observations of para Nos. 2 to 5 from order dated 09.03.2026 are reproduced as under:- "2. This Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.40/2026 filed by the applicant directed the respondents to re-examine the case of the applicant in accordance with law. In pursuance to the said directions, the respondents re-examined the case of the applicant and rejected the same by passing a detailed and speaking order dated 27.02.2026, wherein, they have also provided the details of as many as 45 candidate including the applicant, who were disallowed from participating in the trials on the ground of discrepancies / errors in filling the online application form. 3. In fact, in paragraph No.8 of the said impugned order, the respondents have stated that another candidate, Shri Akshit Hooda, had also mentioned "yes" in the column of "serving employee" while filling up the online application form, but, like the applicant, he had not uploaded the NOC-alongwith his application form. His candidature was also rejected. It is further noted that the said candidate had submitted a representation against the rejection, however, the same was also rejected by the respondents. 4. After perusing all the details mentioned in the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure A-1), we are convinced that the respondents have neither acted arbitrarily nor discriminated against the applicant, as they have adopted a uniform approach in respect of as many as 45 candidates including the applicant, who had committed errors while filling up the online application form. [2026:RJ-JP:14272-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-5958/2026] Interfering in the case of the applicant would, in fact, be unfair to other similarly situated candidates, who have already been disallowed from participating in the trial on similar grounds. 5. Once the respondents have placed on record the details of candidates whose applications were rejected on similar grounds, the same cannot be ignored to give the benefit to the applicant alone, whereas, other similarly situated candidates have already been disallowed by the respondents." 9. The basic case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has mentioned "yes" in the column of "serving employee", which means the petitioner was a serving employee whereas the petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that he is not a serving employee, but inadvertently he has marked his status as "serving employee". 10. In case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a candidate cannot be disqualified for a trivial, bonafide, clerical error in an application form, if does not change his eligibility. The state was directed for appointment where date of birth was mistakenly entered. A Co-ordinate Bench in case of Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Registrar (Examination) Rajasthan High Court & Others (supra) has also permitted subsequent correction in the circumstances mentioned therein. 11. Here in this case, the petitioner has answered in "yes", which means the status of the petitioner was considered "in service". The petitioner was denied trial and he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal but after decision on 23.02.2026, the respondents have examined case of the petitioner. The respondents have placed on record a list of 45 candidates to show [2026:RJ-JP:14272-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-5958/2026] that similarly placed candidates were also not found eligible and there was no discrimination with the petitioner alone. 12. The material on record clearly indicates that the petitioner was denied trial on 28.01.2026 and he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, but the petitioner was treated along with 45 other candidates in similar manner. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected and now the same cannot be reopened by this court by taking a sympathetic view in favor of the petitioner. 13. In view of the distinction as referred hereinabove, the judgment in the cases of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) and Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Registrar (Examination) Rajasthan High Court & Others (supra) are not applicable upon the facts of the instant case. Therefore, the OA was rightly dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 14. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant civil writ petition is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MR/47