JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anant Kumar,J. The petitioner appeared at the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Preliminary Examination 2014 conducted by the State Public Service Commission. The application form was required to be filled online latest by 26 May 2014. The petitioner submitted the form and mentioned the gender as male instead of female. In the admit card downloaded by the petitioner on 1 August 2014, the gender of the petitioner was also mentioned as male. The petitioner appeared at the preliminary examination as a candidate belonging to the OBC category and obtained 265 marks out of 400 marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mistake made by the petitioner while filling the application form was sought to be rectified by the petitioner by moving an application dated 26 May 2014 which was received by the Commission on 27 May 2014 but the Commission did not accede to the prayer made by the petitioner and proceeded to issue the admit card in which the gender of the petitioner was shown as male instead of female. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the gender of the petitioner is treated as female, then she would become entitled to appear at the mains examination scheduled to be held on 5 November 2014 as she has obtained more marks than the last admitted female candidate belonging to the OBC category. Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Commission has submitted that the petition should be dismissed as the petitioner has approached this Court with enormous delay. Learned counsel has, however, also pointed out that the advertisement itself specifically mentioned that errors made by the candidate in the application form submitted online would not be permitted to be corrected but the candidate can, in such circumstances, submit another application. It is, therefore, his submission that the Commission committed no illegality in not treating the gender of the petitioner as female. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The advertisement specifically mentioned that no correction would be permitted to be made in the application submitted online by the candidate and the only option available to a candidate in such a situation was to submit another application form online. The petitioner knew about the mistake on 26 May 2014 because the application submitted by the petitioner for making the correction is dated 26 May 2014. The petitioner knew about the mistake on 26 May 2014 because the application submitted by the petitioner for making the correction is dated 26 May 2014. The petitioner should have, therefore, availed the opportunity by submitting another application online as the last date for submission of the form was 26 May 2014 but that was not done. We also find that the petitioner has made many other mistakes in the application form. In any case, if the petitioner felt aggrieved, she should have approached the Court immediately after 26 May 2014 as she knew that any mistake in the online application form submitted by the petitioner would not be permitted to be corrected. This petition has been filed after a lapse of almost five months in October 2014 when the preliminary examination results have been declared and the main examination is scheduled to be held on 5 November 2014.?? The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ——————