JUDGMENT : The petitioner by filing this writ application seeks a direction for consideration of his candidature in Schedule Caste (SC) category so as to be declared as qualified in the Viva Voce Test in the process of recruitment of contractual Forest Guards under Dhenkanal Forest Division held in the year 2006 and accordingly to give him the appointment against one such vacant post of contractual Forest Guard. 2. Facts necessary for the purpose are as under:- Pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2006 published in Odia daily “Sambad”, the petitioner had applied for the post of Forest Guard on contractual basis under Dhenkanal Forest Division along with required documents. The petitioner is a member of Schedule Caste (SC) being Kaibarta (Dewar) by caste. He was qualified in the written examination held on 01.09.2006 and was next directed to attend the Physical Standard Measurement Test. Finally, he was asked to appear in Viva Voce Test by letter dated 03.10.2006 and to produce all the testimonials in original for verification. At that time for appearing in the Viva Voce Test when he produced the documents for verification, it was detected that in the provisional result of written test instead of mentioning the name of the petitioner under SC category, his name had been so mentioned under the category of Schedule Tribe (ST). However, he had the qualifying marks for being called to the next test even then as candidate of SC category. So despite the wrong mention of the category, the call for the next test was not faulty in as much as even being taken as SC category, he was to receive the said call. But in the Physical Standard Measurement Test, he was being treated as ST category candidate and sent up whereas there he would not have passed, had he been treated as SC category candidate as the relaxation in so far as the height is concerned was only available in respect of the candidates of ST category and none else and this petitioner had the shortfall in that. So, finally candidature of the petitioner having been rejected at that stage and he having not been allowed, the present writ application has been filed. 3. The opposite parties in the counter have pleaded that in the written test, for the candidates belonging to SC and ST categories, the qualifying marks has been fixed at 40%. So, finally candidature of the petitioner having been rejected at that stage and he having not been allowed, the present writ application has been filed. 3. The opposite parties in the counter have pleaded that in the written test, for the candidates belonging to SC and ST categories, the qualifying marks has been fixed at 40%. The petitioner having scored 20.4 marks out of 50 marks had been qualified as SC candidate. It is next stated that inadvertently the petitioner had been shown as ST candidate in the provisional result of the written test and that having been further taken into account; he has been found to have passed in the Physical Standard Measurement Test. Thus, according to the opposite parties this would not have happened, had he been treated as a candidate of SC category since he got the advantage of the relaxation in height by 10 cm which was not available for General and SC candidate. This being said to have been inadvertently made, the same has later on been rectified and therefore his candidature was not considered. It is stated that the petitioner having known this has also not pointed it out. He being well aware of the fact, took the advantage as ST category candidate to which he did not belong. Therefore, it cannot be claimed a matter of right that he has to be held to have passed the Physical Standard Measurement Test meant for the candidates of SC category though he is not passing it and the follow up action cannot be taken up accordingly. 4. Heard Miss S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bikram Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate. 5. Admittedly the petitioner is a member of SC category and he has so applied for his participation in the selection process for recruitment to the post of contractual Forest Guard held in the year 2006 under Dhenkanal Forest Division. He qualified in the written test having scored more than 40% as meant for both SC & ST candidates. However, the fact remains that in the next Physical Standard Measurement Test, the petitioner has been treated as a candidate of ST category and thus having got the relaxation in the minimum height prescribed had been asked to appear in the Viva Voce Test. However, the fact remains that in the next Physical Standard Measurement Test, the petitioner has been treated as a candidate of ST category and thus having got the relaxation in the minimum height prescribed had been asked to appear in the Viva Voce Test. This leads to two inferences i.e. either inadvertently being shown under ST category in the provisional result of written test or by perpetration of mischief so as to be given undue advantage. The petitioner had known about this that he instead of having the minimum height as required for SC candidates has got less than that but more than the requirement of height for the ST candidates and thus has been called for the Viva Voce Test. At this stage, on verification of the certificate, the petitioner having been found to have been treated as a ST category candidate during Physical Standard Measurement Test, in view of his name appearing in the provisional result of the written test as a candidate of ST category, he has not been further allowed to participate. As per the said test, he was found to have not passed through the Physical Standard Measurement Test as prescribed for SC Category candidate and accordingly has been held disqualified therefrom. It is the trite law that if a mistake is committed in passing an administrative order, the same may be rectified and when the mistake is apparent on the face of the record, a rectification is permissible without even giving any hearing to the aggrieved party (Union of India vrs. Bikash Kuanar, (2006) 8 SCC 192 ). It has been held in case of ICAR and another vs. T.K. Suryanarayan and others, (1997)6 SCC 266 that even a promotion granted by a mistake in ignorance of the service rule is capable of being rectified. 6. In the above factual and legal settings, here the action of the opposite parties can neither be said to be arbitrary nor discriminatory. Also their approach in the matter at the time of detection of the wrong be it committed inadvertently or mischievously, cannot be said to be unfair and deliberate so as to deny the petitioner of his legal right. The petitioner in any case is not permitted to take advantage of this wrong for whatever reason may it be, but certainly detrimental to the right of another causing deprivation to him. The petitioner in any case is not permitted to take advantage of this wrong for whatever reason may it be, but certainly detrimental to the right of another causing deprivation to him. Rather had it not been so done even after detection or even saying it to have been an inadvertent action remaining unnoticed and without that going undetected, the final outcome in so far as the ST category candidates are concerned would have remained amenable to serious challenge with scathing attack that it was so made to accommodate the petitioner illegally in the pretext of inadvertent mistake or deliberate omission by taking him within ST category instead of SC category. Even assuming that without any mischievous intention, had it reached the finality as such, the petitioner’s final engagement even if would have been so made, on being questioned would not have sustained as he would have been clearly found to have been illegally accommodated in ST category being of SC category. Thereby a candidate of ST category would have been deprived on being selected in place of the petitioner. Moreover, in the present case, in view of the fact that the petitioner has made the application as SC category candidate, he having been held to have passed in the Physical Standard Measurement Test as a candidate of ST category in view of his name appearing in the written test result under that category, there cannot be application of the principle of estoppel against the opposite parties that they cannot remedy the wrong that too before culmination of the whole process. Therefore, this Court finds that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the opposite parties is in the direction of victimizing the petitioner and as such arbitrary and discriminatory is not acceptable. The petitioner’s claim in the matter is devoid of merit. 7. In the result, the writ application stands dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstance, there shall however be no order as to cost.