ORDER : M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ. Heard Sri. Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri. A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. 2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 14.7.2004 of the learned single Judge. 3. The facts of the case have been set out in detail in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same. 4. The Respondent in this appeal (writ Petitioner) appeared in the Combined Pre-Medical Test, 2004 held in U.P. It appears that the writ Petitioner had opted for Uttaranchal seat and had filled up the relevant form opting for Uttaranchal seat. 5. Learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner contended before the learned single Judge that it was by bona fide mistake that the Petitioner mentioned his/her option for Uttaranchal and in fact, he/she wanted to opt for Uttar Pradesh. The learned single Judge, has observed that this appears to be a bona fide error and hence he allowed the writ petition. 6. The learned single Judge has relied on certain decisions, in which it was held that the form should not be rejected on technicalities. In our opinion, those decisions are distinguishable as this is not a case of rejection of form. The only issue involved in this case is whether the option given in the form by the writ Petitioner can be subsequently changed by him/her. 7. In our opinion, once the form is filled up, the option cannot be changed by the candidate. The form was filled up by the candidate of his own free will and if subsequently he/she is allowed to change the statement, there will be chaos and confusion because there can be a large number of such cases. 8. Learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner (Respondent before us) has contended that the law should be tempered with equity. In our opinion, equitable considerations have no place in a case such as the present one, otherwise there will be no end to the requests for changing the option subsequent to the filling of the same before the authorities. 9. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7190 of 2002, Union Public Service Commission v. Rajeshwar Singh, decided on 17.2.2004. 10. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.