Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and for the Central selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). 2. The petitioners were applicants for the post of Constables in the District Police, Bihar Military Police and the State Railway Police. They are aggrieved by denial of appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the selection was based on a written test which form the basis of a mark obtained to be followed by a Physical Evaluation Test which was the qualifying test. At the time of submission of applications candidates belonging to the general category, extremely backward caste, backward caste both male and female were required to submit their applications in a Blue colour form. The candidates were required to disclose their reservation status in the application form. No documents were to be annexed. The caste certificates were to be produced at the time of physical evaluation test. The petitioners in their application forms committed an inadvertent error by ticking the wrong reserved category status. During the physical evaluation test they have to produce their correct caste certificates. If the caste certificate of the petitioners are not in dispute, the inadvertent error committed by them cannot visit them with such drastic consequences shifting them out for consideration for appointment. The omission on their part was too technical to adopt a hyper-technical approach. Petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 6 erroneously mentioned that they belonged to Most Backward Caste in place of Backward Caste. Petitioner No. 5 belonged to the most Backward Category but wrongly disclosed his status as B.C.-II. Similar errors of the reserved category status occurred with regard to the others. 4. Counsel for the Board submits that the advertisement stated that the candidates should read the instructions carefully before filling the form. Those successful in the written examination were to be called in the ratio of 1:5 based on their reservation category disclosed. The application form stated that in case of any error committed by a candi1date in filling up the form, his candidature shall be rejected. The petitioners are themselves answerable for their predicament in not having been careful while filling the application form. Reliance is placed on (2008) 9 SCC 403 (T. Jayakumar vs. A. Gopu & Ors.). 5. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post was matriculate. The qualification of the petitioners is not stated in the writ application. The petitioners are themselves answerable for their predicament in not having been careful while filling the application form. Reliance is placed on (2008) 9 SCC 403 (T. Jayakumar vs. A. Gopu & Ors.). 5. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post was matriculate. The qualification of the petitioners is not stated in the writ application. Even if they possess the minimum educational qualification, they are literate. They had the capacity to read and understand the instructions contained in the advertisement and in the application form. The answerability for errors committed by them in filling it up lies with them alone. 6. If they mentioned one reserved category states (sic-status?) in their application form and produced another reservation category certificate at the time of P.E.T., it clearly amounted to a defective application fit to be rejected. It also creates a controversy with regard to their caste status. The importance of calling the successful candidate for P.E.T. in the ratio of 1:5 and the complications that shall now arise also cannot be ignored. The Court finds no error in the respondents rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on the aforesaid ground calling for any interference in judicial review. 7. It is apparent that this ratio of 1:5 was done after the written examination based on the reservation status as may have been mentioned by the candidate in his application form. To interfere with the same at this stage may create turmoil in the entire selection process. Any observation and/or direction in favour of the petitioners on the plea that it was an inadvertent error may violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India by shutting out other candidates who may have committed similar or other errors. That their caste certificates were not in dispute is not relevant. 8. The fact that the petitioners may have been called for the PET. but have been denied consideration on account of the wrong declaration of caste is best answered in Paragraph-12 of the Judgment in T. Jayakumar (supra) relied upon by the respondents which read as follows:- "12. We are not aware of any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process, the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. We are not aware of any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process, the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in the selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light." 9. The writ application is dismissed.