Manisha Patel vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition of the humble petitioner and;

A. By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents be directed to correct the category of petitioner as MBC category and if she is selected in interview in his category i.e. MBC category the petitioner may be given appointment be accorded to him B. By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondent be directed to declare the petitioner qualified for interview and be selected for the post of teacher grade IInd. C. Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners. D. Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners."

Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement 09.04.2018 the petitioner applied for the post of Senior Teacher Grade II. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 18.05.2020 with a prayer for change of her category from OBC to MBC.

Counsel for petitioner submits that the action of the respondent in not changing her category from OBC to MBC is arbitrary in nature as the petitioner has informed the respondents prior to declaration of the result.

In support of contention, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) decided on 01.11.2017 wherein it has been held as under:-

"1. Learned counsel for the respondents appears on advance copy of the writ-appeal being served.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

On 18.02.2017 an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of LDC in different District Judgeships and District Legal Services Authority. The advertisement cautioned the applicants to be careful while submitting their applications on-line and ensure that the form was correctly filled up.

The appellant claims to be a member of an Other Backward Class and while filling up the on- line form she wrongly clicked at the option "OBC Creamy Layer". This made her disentitled to the benefit of being treated as a candidate in the OBC category, for the reason a member of an Other Backward Class, if falling within creamy layer, would not entitle her to the benefit of reservation.

When the result was declared the appellant found that she had secured 158 marks in the written examination and the last female OBC candidate selected had secured 157 marks. She then realised her mistake.

Vide impugned decision dated 27.10.2017 the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that being an educated person, the appellant ought to have been careful.

To err is human. We do not note the second part: To forgive is divine.

Mistakes can be of two kinds. First kind would be where nobody is affected by a mistake. The second is where a third party is affected by a mistake.

The difference in the two mistakes would be that whereas rectification of the first would cause no prejudice, rectification of the second would cause a prejudice.

We find in the decisions dated 31.07.2013 in D.B.S.A.W No.875/2012, State of Rajasthan Vs. Datar Singh, dated 11.10.2017 in S.B.C.W.P No.7159/2017, Dinesh Kumar Mahawar Vs. RPSC & Ors., dated 27.01.2017 in S.B.C.W.P No.906/2017, Shimala Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dated 24.11.2016 in S.B.C.W.P No.15654/2016, Sapana Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P.(Civil) No.3721/2017, Arkshit Kapoor Vs. Union of India & Ors., dated 31.07.2017 in W.P. (Civil) No.11642/2016, Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors., passed by this Court and the Delhi High Court, the consistent view taken is that a bonafide mistake which does not affect a third party right should be allowed to be cured.

We dispose of the appeal directing that the appellant be treated as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate and we permit her to participate in the further selection process. Needless to state the respondents would be entitled to verify the certificate submitted by the appellant.

Being informed that the type test is scheduled for 02.11.2017 we direct that the appellant be issued an Admit Card entitling her to take the type test tomorrow i.e. 02.11.2017. The Admit Card be issued today itself.

The appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 and allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the result of the examination in question has been declared by the respondent on 12.03.2020 and now the petitioner has filed writ petition on 18.05.2020. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has not impleaded the selected candidates under the MBC category as party respondent in the present writ petition. Counsel further submits that since the third party rights have been created no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the final result has been declared by the respondents on 12.03.2020 and the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 18.05.2020; secondly, the petitioner has failed to implead any selected candidate as party respondent in the present writ petition; thirdly no relief can be granted to the petitioner in view of the judgment passed in the Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (supra) as the third party rights have been created.

Hence this writ petition is dismissed.