Judgment 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in the ongoing counseling in connection with appointment, by direct recruitment to the Non-interview posts included in the combined Civil Services examination – II, 2013-2014 (Group – II A Services). 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- He belongs to Backward Class community and completed B.E. Degree course in Electronics and Communications. Through Notification No.1/2014 dated 06.02.2014, the respondent called for application for the post included in the combined Civil Services Examination – II ( Non-interview posts) (Group – II A services) and the petitioner applied for the post. The written examination was scheduled on 29.06.2014. The petitioner mentioned in the application sent through online in the column dealing with number of attempts as more than three. However, by mistake, the petitioner claimed fee exemption and typed 'Yes' instead of 'No' in the column provided for claiming fee exemption. The petitioner was permitted to write the examination without payment of fee and he was given rank 1151. Thereafter, he was called upon to attend the certificate verification on 07.01.2015 and counseling was fixed on 08.01.2015. The petitioner attended the certificate verification on 07.01.2015 and submitted all the requisite certificates. However, after verifying the petitioner's certificates, the officials attached to the respondent Commission told the petitioner that he has not paid fee for the examination and therefore, he will not be allowed to participate the counseling on 08.01.2015. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court with the relief as stated supra. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner has rightly stated in the respective column dealing with the number of attempts as more than three, by mistake has typed as 'Yes' instead of 'No' in the column dealing with claim for fee exemption. According to the learned counsel, it is a bone fide mistake and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the counseling as he was already allowed to write the examination and thereafter, given the rank of 1151. 4. According to the learned counsel, it is a bone fide mistake and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the counseling as he was already allowed to write the examination and thereafter, given the rank of 1151. 4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Commission, based on the written instructions, submitted that during the certificate verification, it was found that the petitioner has not paid prescribed examination fee and he is not entitled to fee concession, as he has already written the examination more than three occasion. As per the Commission's instructions, fee concession for B.C. Category is limited upto three free chances only and due to non-payment of examination fee, the Commission has rejected the petitioner's application. He further submitted that the candidates were called for certificate verification and counseling as per overall rank and as on 13.01.2015, all vacancies under GT(G) and BC(G) categories were filled up and no vacancy is available under the above two categories to reserve for the petitioner. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already availed three chances to write the examination without payment of fee, as per the Commission's instructions. Therefore, this time he has to necessarily pay the fee and take the examination. On the other hand, the petitioner in his application has falsely claimed that no fee payable in the column referred in the application dealing with the application fee for intimation/charges details. No doubt, the petitioner was permitted to write the examination. But, it appears that such permission was granted, based on the scrutiny of the application alone and the three attempts already made by the petitioner came to be known to the respondent only at the time of certificate verification. Therefore, the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the counseling, even though he was permitted to write the examination. But, it appears that such permission was granted, based on the scrutiny of the application alone and the three attempts already made by the petitioner came to be known to the respondent only at the time of certificate verification. Therefore, the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the counseling, even though he was permitted to write the examination. It is well settled that while filling up the application, the candidates should furnish all the informations correctly without any misstatement and as and when it comes to the knowledge of the Commission that a false claim is made in the application, the Commission is at liberty to prevent such person, who made such false claim, from participating in further process of the selection and such conduct of the Commission cannot be found fault with. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commission has allowed several candidates to correct their applications whenever it has found some mistakes therein, he has not placed any materials in support of such vague contention. Moreover, it is seen that all the vacancies under GT(G) and BC(G) categories were filled up as on 13.01.2015 and no vacancies also available. 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being the discretionary jurisdiction, cannot compel the respondent Commission to permit the petitioner to take part in the counseling. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.