JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha and Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ. - The appellants herein have assailed the order passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8589/2017 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8458/2017 on 25.10.2017 whereby their candidatures for examination for the post of Lower Division Clerk have been rejected while dismissing writ petitions by a common order. Therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly, the facts in the matter are that appellants-petitioners considering themselves eligible for the post of Lower Division Clerk applied in pursuance of the notification/advertisement dated 18.02.2017 issued by the respondent Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. For the purpose, the appellants-petitioners submitted their online application forms and paid the requisite examination fee by the online payment through E-Mitra as one of the mode provided by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on the official website. On having come to know through the news published in the news paper that the Admit Cards for the ensuing examination have already been uploaded by the respondent Rajasthan High Court, the appellants-petitioners proceeded to download the same but they found that their Admit Cards have not been issued as per the official website. On further inquiry, it was revealed that against their names, "Fee not received" is reflected and further it was mentioned that they are "not allowed". 3. Aggrieved of the same, writ petitions were preferred by the appellants-petitioners before this Court submitting therein that they had made online payments and their Bank statements also reveals that the amount has been duly debited from their accounts, therefore, the candidature of the appellants-petitioners have been wrongly disallowed and, therefore, they may be permitted to undertake the process for selection of Lower Division Clerk. 4. Interim orders in the writ petitions aforesaid were made in pursuance of which the appellants-petitioners appeared in the written examination, after depositing the examination fee by Demand Draft, but ultimately, after the matter was finally heard, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners have been rejected. Hence present appeals are preferred. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. 4. Interim orders in the writ petitions aforesaid were made in pursuance of which the appellants-petitioners appeared in the written examination, after depositing the examination fee by Demand Draft, but ultimately, after the matter was finally heard, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners have been rejected. Hence present appeals are preferred. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that once the amount has been debited from the accounts of the appellants, there is no reason for them to disbelieve that the amount has actually not reached the respondent Rajasthan High Court and, therefore, only on this account if their candidature is rejected, then the action of the respondents is nothing but very harsh and unreasonable. Learned counsel further submits that the forms have been downloaded categorically showing the amount and the reference number sufficiently indicative of the fact that their forms are complete in all respect and the amount which is debited from their accounts have reached the respondents and, therefore, there is no question of denying the participation of the appellants-petitioners in the examination. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the pictorial presentation also, at page No.18, it is very clear that once the reference number is projected, the forms having been printed, indicates that the forms of the appellants have been accepted complete in all respect and merely because the Application ID and Token ID is not shown in their forms, their candidature cannot be rejected as there is no fault on their part since the amount has already been debited from their accounts. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners submits that the appellants are not having the facility of computer at their residence and since they belong to the rustic rural area, it was not possible for them to keep the track of further developments in the matter and if their forms were not completed in all respect then they should have been communicated the fact of having not received the payment by the High Court and, therefore, merely on this ground, their forms should not have been rejected. 9. 9. He further states that in the passing remarks, learned Single Judge has also realized this fact that the High Court should develop a programme of sending an SMS to each candidate as the candidates are asked to fill or supply their mobile numbers while filling their forms. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners further submits that since it is an open competition and, if they are allowed to undergo type test, no rights of any persons will be affected in the present case and no prejudice will be caused to any of the candidates. 11. He further submits that there were about 86,345 candidates who had not deposited their fees and the figure itself clearly reflects that there were some difficulties/error in the system itself and, therefore, because of the genuine reason, although the appellants-petitioners have deposited the fee, the same has not been accounted for in the Bank account of the respondents and, therefore, the appellants should not be debarred on this ground. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners has reiterated his arguments that in view of the judgment passed by this Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Datar Singh; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 875/2012, at least one opportunity for rectification of error should be granted to the appellants by allowing them to participate in the process of selection undertaken by the respondents. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the instructions for filing online application form were very clear and unambiguous, making the entire steps to be followed meticulously and any deviation or error committed by any of the candidates will not be condoned and the same will be entailing in the rejection of the candidature of the candidates. 14. Even the pictorial description of entire process amply clarify the steps to be undertaken and giving the minute details of the entire process for completion for the formalities for examination for the Post of Lower Division Clerk. 15. 14. Even the pictorial description of entire process amply clarify the steps to be undertaken and giving the minute details of the entire process for completion for the formalities for examination for the Post of Lower Division Clerk. 15. Learned counsel further submits that as per the instructions, unless the application ID is generated, there was no question to believe for the appellants that their forms have been properly submitted and the transaction of the payment of fee is successful, since, the fault squarely lies in the court of appellants, at this stage when the process has already been completed and only appointment orders are left to be issued, the appellants should not be allowed to get the benefit of their own mistake. 16. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Sunil Bhanwariya vs. Registrar, Examination Cell, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3331/2014 decided on 12.05.2014, wherein the Division Bench held as under: "In our estimate, not only the facts as obtain in the instant proceedings are distinctly different from those in Datar Singh(supra), to reiterate, the posts and the service involved are also incomparable. A candidate vying for recruitment to a post of the Civil Judge (JD)- cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class in the Service is expected to be essentially attentive, careful, precise and focused more particularly in view of the repeated caveats in the advertisement emphasizing on the inflexible requirement of furnishing complete and correct informations bearing on the candidature and also the inevitable consequences of the rejection thereof otherwise. That no mistake of omission was to be allowed to be corrected or furnished was also mentioned in clear terms." 17. Therefore, in light of above judgment also the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties. 19. It is a fact that detailed instructions were issued for the process of filling up the forms for the post of Lower Division Clerk Examination by the Rajasthan High Court and a bare reading of the general instructions clearly reveals that a candidate was required to fill in the form as per the guidelines mentioned therein. The bonafide impression of the appellant cannot override the clear specific and unambiguous instructions made available by the respondents to be strictly followed by each candidate. 20. The bonafide impression of the appellant cannot override the clear specific and unambiguous instructions made available by the respondents to be strictly followed by each candidate. 20. In the order impugned since the entire general conditions have been reproduced, therefore, we are not reproducing the same herein, but a perusal of the same reveals that there were three crucial stages for submitting and competing the online application form, viz., (i) on successful completion/filing of the form, a Reference Number is generated; (ii) with the said reference, a candidate can make payment through e-Mitra or online banking, which would generate a Token Number; and (iii) with the generation of the Token Number, the data would be disseminated to the High Court''s server and on receipt of the payment by the High Court, an Application ID is generated. 21. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that in none of the appellant''s application, the application ID is generated/projected and, therefore, it can rightly be presumed and held that the amount was not credited in the account of the respondent High Court. 22. The appellants-petitioners pleaded ignorance about nontracking the process due to their rural background and lack of facilities, which cannot help them as firstly, they should have been careful and watchful as the machinery which have been put in motion for conducting Lower Division Clerk Examination was dealing with a large number of candidates and, therefore, the relevant informations were being transmitted on their official website. Secondly, an opportunity was also granted by issuing a notification on 22.04.2017 permitting the candidate to pay the fee by 02.05.2017 who could not make the payment because of any reason and on account of bonafide and genuine difficulties. Once such names were projected on the official website, care should have been taken to avail the opportunity granted by depositing their fees to avail the opportunity in the present selection process. 23. Even in the depiction in the pictorial presentation, it is very clear that the moment fee is deposited in the account of the respondents then only the application ID is generated and the copy of the form can be printed. 24. 23. Even in the depiction in the pictorial presentation, it is very clear that the moment fee is deposited in the account of the respondents then only the application ID is generated and the copy of the form can be printed. 24. It is also a condition precedent mentioned in the advertisement that the generation of the application ID will be the only proof of successful payment of the examination fee and that will be taken to be conclusive proof of the fact that candidate''s online application has been properly registered. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the amount has been deposited from the account of the appellants is not convincing and the same is liable to be rejected. 25. As far as non-generation of the application ID in the present case is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the amount has not been deposited in the account of the respondent and, therefore, there is no fault on part of the respondent in rejecting the application/candidature of the appellants, more particularly despite the fact that one more opportunity on 22.04.2017 was allowed to the candidates similarly situated to the appellants to make the payment on or before 02.05.2017 was not availed by the appellants depicting a very casual and laid back attitude of the appellants. 26 Taking into consideration the fact that the process has already been completed and, therefore, if the appellants are permitted, it will entail into a hostile discrimination to those persons who were debarred on the same ground, but have not approached this Court, much less it will be an opening of pendora''s box, if the appellants are permitted to appear in the selection process, at this stage, which stands concluded long back, we are not persuaded to interfere in the order of learned Single Bench. 27. In view of whatever discussed above, the order passed by learned Single Judge is upheld, the appeals, thus, have no force and the same are hereby dismissed.