[2026:RJ-JP:10284] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4373/2026 Nirmala Wife Of Late Rakesh Kumar Dhawal Daughter Of Surja Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Near Jai Hind School, Street No. 2, Choukhunti, Gajner Road, District Bikaner (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur- 302018 Through Secretary. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma with Mr. Suresh Kumar Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Maheshwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 10/03/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted his application form pursuant to advertisement No.19/2024 for recruitment on the post of Class-IV employees. Learned counsel submits that although the petitioner belong to SC-Widow category, yet on account of bona fide error, which is attributable to the computer operator, instead of submitting application for SC-Widow category, the petitioner has applied under SC-Married category. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. [2026:RJ-JP:10284] (2 of 3) [CW-4373/2026] 3. It would reveal by perusing the advertisement No.19/2024 dated 12.12.2024 that in Clause-17(i), it has been specified by the recruiting agency i.e. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board that after submitting online application form, in order to rectify any error in the category of reservation/domicile/category of special ability, opportunity would be granted to the respective candidate. Such opportunity would be of seven days from the last date of submitting application form as prescribed in the advertisement. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner never submitted any application for correction of his category within the period of correction window prescribed in the advertisement. It has also been brought to notice of this Court that pursuant to Clause 17(ii) of the advertisement, in cases where the candidates could not carry out rectification pursuant to Clause 17(i) within the time prescribed, then even after completion of examination, opportunity was required to be given for making necessary correction. It is informed that in the present case also, one press note dated 07.10.2025 was issued and published at the official website after completion of the examination, whereby another opportunity for carrying out rectification in the online application form was given to respective candidates. The petitioner has also not pleaded anything that she has availed even such second opportunity for rectifying the alleged bona fide error in the online application form. As per petitioner, first time representation was submitted by the petitioner much after declaration of result, which is nothing, but an after thought as well as against the scheme of recruitment examination. [2026:RJ-JP:10284] (3 of 3) [CW-4373/2026] 5. It is settled proposition of law as held by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15900/2021 (Mustak Khan vs. The Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Ors.), the relevant portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced as hereunder:- "5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while relying on the judgment of this Court in Sunil Bhanwariya v. Registrar, Examination Cell, RHC, Jodhpur & Anr. submits that the petitioner having participated in the preliminary examination in the General category cannot raise this issue at belated stage after declaration of the result for the post of District Judge. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, having participated in the examination and knowing that he has applied in the General category, he cannot be allowed to change his category from General to OBC (NCL) category. No prima facie case is made out by the petitioner. He did not file any proof to the effect that he made any endeavour to change his category in the application form from General to OBC (NCL)." 6. In the light of above, there is no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is hereby dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/42