‘Third Gender’ Filled by Mistake, Read as Female: Raj HC

‘Third Gender’ Entered by Mistake: Rajasthan High Court Directs Female Category for Candidate, Says Order Not a Precedent

Published: 27 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has directed that a candidate in the Class-IV Employee Direct Recruitment-2024, who mentioned her gender as ‘Third Gender’ instead of ‘Female’ in her form by mistake, be considered as ‘Female’ (paras 2, 4). The Staff Selection Board said the correction came too late, but could not dispute that she is a female candidate (para 3). The Court allowed her writ petition on the peculiar facts and made clear that the order “shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case” (para 4).

Key holdings

The petitioner inadvertently mentioned her gender as ‘Third Gender’ instead of ‘Female’ in her Class-IV application form (para 2).

The Selection Board objected that the correction came too late, but could not dispute that she is a female candidate and not of the third-gender category (para 3).

Her candidature is to be processed as ‘Female’, and the order is not to be treated as a precedent in any other case (para 4).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner applied for the post of Class-IV Employee in the Class-IV Employee Direct Recruitment-2024, advertised on 12 December 2024. In her application form she inadvertently mentioned her gender as ‘Third Gender’ instead of ‘Female’ (para 2). By her writ petition she asked that her gender be considered as ‘Female’, that she be allowed to take part in the recruitment in her category, and that she be appointed if otherwise found eligible (opening paragraph). The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board opposed the correction at this belated stage, saying she had not availed the various opportunities given to her to make corrections (para 3).

Court's Findings

Having heard both sides and examined the record, the Court found that the petitioner, while filling in her application form for the post of Class-IV Employee, had inadvertently mentioned her gender as ‘Third Gender’ instead of ‘Female’ (para 2). It noted the Selection Board's stand that, at this belated stage, the Board could not accept her request for correction, because she had not used the opportunities given to make corrections (para 3). When the Court asked, however, the Board was unable to dispute that the petitioner is a female candidate and does not belong to the third-gender category (para 3). In view of that, and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed that her candidature be processed under the correct gender category (para 4). The order does not examine the missed correction opportunities further. The Court expressly confined it to this case: it “shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case” (para 4).

Legal Principle

On the peculiar facts of this case, where the Selection Board could not dispute that a candidate who had mentioned ‘Third Gender’ by mistake is female, the Court directed that her candidature be processed as ‘Female’. The Court made clear that the order is not to be treated as a precedent in any other case (para 4).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This order helps one candidate on her own facts and is not authority for others: the Court said it “shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case” (para 4). The Selection Board's objection was that she had not used the opportunities given to correct the form (para 3). What decided the case was that the Board, when asked by the Court, could not dispute that she is a female candidate and not of the third-gender category (para 3). Candidates who discover a wrong entry in a recruitment form should use the correction opportunities the recruiting body offers, rather than count on this order later.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.