Pragya Tripathi @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“1. By an appropriate writ order or direction, any order denying the qualification and candidature of the petitioner for selection and appointment on

the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) English in pursuance of the amended advertisement dated 11.09.2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

By an appropriate writ order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to consider the qualification of the petitioner for her selection and

appointment for the post of Teacher Grade-III (level-II) English agaisnt the category of General Divorcee Women in pursuance of the amended

advertisement dated 11.09.2017.

By an appropriate writ order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner in the further selection process and provide

the appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) English in pursuance of the amended advertisement dated 11.09.2017 with all

consequential benefits.

Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Courtdeemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the advertisement was issued on 11.09.2013 by the respondents for the recruitment on the post of

Teacher Grade III in Primary and Upper Primary school in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner participated in the said selection process and her

name finds place at serial No.2213 in the list of eligible candidates. However, the petitioner’s appointment was stopped because she filled up the

details regarding English subject, in the application form, in the head of “Subject for Graduationâ€, which was not meant to be filled by petitioner.Â

The petitioner in the head of “Education Qualification Detailsâ€, had already mentioned about her graduation as per the requirement which was

sufficient.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench at Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court in

Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017), decided on 01.11.2017. The said

judgment reads as under :-

“D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.41684/2017:

For the reasons stated in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the same is allowed. D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.1700/2017:

Learned counsel for the respondents appears onadvance copy of the writ-appeal being served.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

On 18.02.2017 an advertisement was issuedinviting 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 OtherBackward Class and while filling up the on-line form she wrongly clicked at the option “OBC

Creamy Layerâ€. 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 foundthat 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 viewtaken 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 bewhere 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 thatwhereas 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 inD.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 theappellant 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 for02.11.2017 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 theimpugned order dated 27.10.2017 and allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the applicability of the aforequoted judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division

Bench, in the present set of facts. It is also contended that the mistake committed by the petitioner is bonafide one.

In light of the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the mistake committed by the petitioner in mentioning

English subject, as aforementioned, in the column of “Subject in Graduationâ€, was a bonafide mistake. The petitioner had already mentioned the

details of graduation in the head of qualification in the application form which was the requirement.

Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the qualification of the petitioner, as mentioned, under the

head of “Education Qualification Details†only and therefore, consider the case of the petitioner, on her own merit and eligibility, for giving

appointment to her on the post in question. Such consideration shall be made by the respondents within a period 30 days from today.