JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral) The moot question involved in this petition is as to whether the Public Service Commission is bound to accept an incomplete application form and thereafter issue admit card and permit the applicant to compete in the examination. 2. The petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and in terms of the advertisement dated 15.12.2015 is stated to have personally submitted the application form alongwith all requisite documents in the office of the respondent. However, the application form was rejected by the respondent on the ground that the certificate of age proof had not been submitted therewith. The petitioner submitted representation on 1.2.2016, which has been rejected vide letter dated 5.2.2016, constraining her to file the present writ petition claiming therein the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent commission to consider the application form of the petitioner and permit her to compete in the written examination to be held on 28.2.2016. (ii) That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned rejection dated 5.2.2016 (Annexure P-6) and further permit the petitioner to sit in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to be held on 28.2.2016.” 3. The respondent in reply to the petition has averred that the petitioner had though submitted the application alongwith some documents in their office but after scrutiny it was found that the petitioner as per the advertisement had not attached the age proof certificate with the down-loaded application form and her form was accordingly rejected. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 4. The parties are ad idem that in terms of the advertisement, the aspiring candidates were required to submit their application forms alongwith certain certificates including the matriculation certificate or its equivalent showing therein the date of birth of the candidate. There is also no dispute that in terms of the advertisement an application submitted in the proforma, which was not prescribed, improperly filled up, defective applications or applications with inadequate fees or applications received after 05.01.2016 could not be entertained and were to be rejected out-rightly without providing opportunity for correction. 5. There is also no dispute that in terms of the advertisement an application submitted in the proforma, which was not prescribed, improperly filled up, defective applications or applications with inadequate fees or applications received after 05.01.2016 could not be entertained and were to be rejected out-rightly without providing opportunity for correction. 5. The only contention put-forth by the petitioner is that she had submitted her application, complete in all respects, by submitting the same personally in the office of the respondent and, therefore, the action of the respondent in rejecting the form and not issuing admit card is prima-facie arbitrary, wrong and illegal. That apart, once the petitioner had already filled in her date of birth as 01.01.1992 in the application form, then the respondent could not have insisted for her matriculation certificate or any other document in support of her age. 6. The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that firstly the submission/non-submission of certificates in question is a disputed question of fact which cannot be determined in the instant proceedings and even otherwise there is nothing on the record to prima-facie indicate much less establish and prove that the certificate in fact had been submitted. Secondly, the submission of matriculation certificate or its equivalent showing the date of birth is not an empty formality, but is a mandatory condition prescribed in the advertisement itself. Since the petitioner had not furnished the documents as required in the advertisement, her candidature was rightly rejected. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner cannot even dispute that the conditions prescribed in the advertisement have to be strictly complied with and this has been the consistent view of this Court. (See: CWP No.1427 of 2015 titled Yatin Sachdeva vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 27.2.2015, Gunjan Kapoor vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others 1999 (1) Shim. L.C. 246, CWP No. 779 of 2001, titled Rahul Dubey vs. H.P.Public Service Commission and another decided on 10.9.2001, CWP No. 7965 of 2014 titled Indu Bhardwaj vs. H.P.Public Service Commission and others, decided on 19.12.2014 and CWP No. 6170 of 2014 titled Harish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 17.9.2014). 8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.