A candidate who fails prescribed correction opportunities cannot later alter her declared recruitment category.

The appellant, a permanent resident of Rajasthan belonging to the General Category and qualifying as a widow, applied for the post of Class-IV Employee pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.12.2024.

While the online form was being completed through an E-Mitra operator, her category was allegedly entered as “OBC” instead of “General”; her widow status was correctly recorded.

The respondents issued an admit card showing her as an “OBC Widow” candidate, and she appeared in the examination held on 20.09.2025.

Her normalized score was 72.9512 marks, exceeding the cut-offs for both the OBC Widow and General Widow categories, but the result and merit list continued to reflect her as an OBC Widow candidate.

She sought correction of her category and consideration under the General Widow category.

The learned Single Judge dismissed her writ petition on 01.04.2026, holding that she had failed to use the opportunities provided under the advertisement and subsequent correction notice.

The appellant challenged that order in the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the appellant could seek correction of the category entered in her online application from “OBC Widow” to “General Widow” after the prescribed correction opportunities had expired.

Whether the appellant was entitled to consideration under the General Widow category on the ground that the incorrect category entry was an inadvertent error attributable to the E-Mitra operator and that she had secured marks above the relevant cut-off.

Whether the respondents’ refusal to alter the category violated the appellant’s rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Clause 17(i) and (ii) of the recruitment advertisement, which permitted correction of errors in the application form, upon payment of the prescribed fee, within seven days from the last date for submission and treated that opportunity as final.

It also relied on the press note dated 07.10.2025, which permitted candidates to make necessary corrections between 06.10.2025 and 16.10.2025.

Applying the principle that a selection process is an integrated continuum, the Court relied on Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad, (2005) 12 SCC 498, for the rule that a candidate’s category status, once opted for at the threshold, cannot ordinarily be altered at a later stage.

It further relied on Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Neetu Harsh, (2021) 11 SCC 383, and Piyush Kavivya v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, concerning the impermissibility of claiming or changing reservation/category status after the prescribed stage of the selection process.

The Court held that the appellant had been given two opportunities to correct the alleged mistake: first, under Clause 17 of the advertisement, and subsequently during the correction window notified by the press note dated 07.10.2025.

Despite becoming aware from the admit card that she had been classified as an OBC Widow, she did not obtain correction within the prescribed periods.

Her formal request was made only after publication of the result and merit list, when the outcome was known.

Applying the doctrine that a candidate cannot alter her category midstream in a competitive selection process, the Court concluded that permitting the change at that stage would undermine uniformity and equal treatment of candidates.

The fact that her marks exceeded the General Widow cut-off, or that she attributed the error to the E-Mitra operator, did not override the binding correction procedure and the requirement of consistency in category status.

It held that she had no enforceable right to change her category from “OBC Widow” to “General Widow” after failing to avail the correction opportunities provided under the advertisement and subsequent press note.

The learned Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition was found to contain no error.

The special appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the stay petition and all other pending applications were also dismissed.