Judgment In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-1 dated 2.3.2012 whereby his candidature is rejected on the ground that along with candidature petitioner has filed an affidavit which was not as per the format Annexure A. Shri N.K. Gupta fairly argued that the said defect was curable and for that technically the entire candidature should not have been rejected. Per contra, Shri N.K. Jain, Senior counsel supported the order and relied on various judgments. In W.P. No. 2489/07 (Manish Kumar Shukla vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.), this Court held as under : "This court cannot interfere in the matter and issue a direction to the respondents to reconsider he application of the petitioner when the application is not submitted in accordance to the requirement of the terms and condition. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case no case is made out warranting interference in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, finding the petition to be wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, the same is dismissed. " Similarly, in W.P. No. 3773/07 (Pradeep Sharma vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & another), this Court held as under: "Petitioner may be right in the contending that it was a mistake committed by him but the mistake has, resulted in non-compliance with the requirement of the advertisement which entitles the respondent to reject the application. That being so, this Court cannot interfere with the action of the respondent as respondent have strictly followed the mandate of the advertisement and has rejected the application of the petitioner finding non-compliance of the requirement prescribed in the advertisement. Accordingly, keeping in view the principles laid down in the cases relied upon by Shri N.K. Jain, learned senior counsel under the similar circumstances, finding no error in the action taken by the respondent, petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. " This Court in W.P. 1310/2 (Atar Singh Dhakad vs. Union of India & others) followed the ratio of the said judgments and held that the petitioner's affidavit is neither as per the proforma nor contains all the informations and declarations required to be given as per the prescribed forma. It is further held that such a defect cannot be termed as curable defect. It is further held that such a defect cannot be termed as curable defect. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said judgment squarely covers the case of the present petitioner and in her case also the defects are not curable because the affidavit is not as per the proforma and it does not disclose all the ingredients which are required to be disclosed as per the prescribed forma. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No costs.