JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. 1. Instant batch of petitions have been filed arising the self same question for consideration, hence with the consent of the parties are being decided by the present order. 2. The facts with consent have been noticed from S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16720/2016 & 16010/2016. 3. The post of Junior Accountant is included in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 (in short 'the Rules, 1963') and that of Tehsil Revenue Accountant is included in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Revenue Accounts Subordinate Service Rules, 1975 (in short 'the Rules, 1975') and vide the amendment Notification dt. 05.07.2011, Schedule-II has been substituted in both the respective Service Rules, laying down a combined competitive examination for Accountant, Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant and in the combined competitive examination, there shall be two papers and Paper-I shall carry 450 marks with the subjects Hindi, English, General Knowledge, Everyday Science, Mathematics & Basics of Computer, which shall be of senior secondary standard except Mathematics & Basics of Computers, which shall be of secondary standards and Paper-II shall also carry 450 marks with the subjects Book Keeping and Accountancy, Business Methods, Auditing, Indian Economics, RSR Vol. I with selected chapters and GRR & AR-Part-I. with selected chapters and Paper-II shall be of the standard of Graduation Level and both the Papers-I & II will be of objective type with multiple choice questions with negative marking and one has to qualify with 35% minimum marks in both the papers and 40% marks in aggregate and relaxation upto 5% marks will be applicable to SC/ST category candidates and there shall be no viva voce test. 4. Although, it is a combined competitive examination for Junior Accountant & Tehsil Revenue Accountant but the posts are included in the Rules, 1963 & Rules, 1975 respectively but R.6 proviso (iii) of the Rules, 1963 provides that 12 1/2% of the posts of Junior Accountants, to be filled in by direct recruitment, have been reserved for being filled in from amongst the ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government holding a post in the cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise suitable for recruitment under the Rules. The relevant R.6 proviso (iii) of the Rules, 1963, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced ad infra:- "PART III - Recruitment R.6. Method of Recruitment. The relevant R.6 proviso (iii) of the Rules, 1963, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced ad infra:- "PART III - Recruitment R.6. Method of Recruitment. Recruitment to the Service shall be made in the manner specified in column 3 of the Schedule by recruitment in accordance with Part IV of these Rules: Provided that: (i) XX XX XX (ii) XX XX XX (iii) Provided also further that 12 1/2% of the posts of Junior Accountants to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government holding a post in the Cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the Rules. This reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year." 5. It may be relevant to note that no such reservation for the ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government holding a post in the Cadre substantively has been provided for the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant included in the Schedule appended to the Rules, 1975. 6. The advertisement came to be notified by the Commission dt. 18.09.2013 holding selection for the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant and on-line applications were to be filled in terms of the advertisement by the candidates who intended to participate for the posts of Junior Accountant & Tehsil Revenue Accountant by 20.10.2013. In the on-line application apart from other relevant details in regard to his qualification, marital status, in Cl. 10 & 11, a candidate is supposed to disclosed the various categories to which he is a member and this court considers it appropriate to quote the relevant instructions one has to fill while filling the on-line application, which reads ad infra:- "9. Self-attested documents may be asked by commission as and when required along with signed this application form. Certificate Tick Appropriate 1. Age Proof 2. Qualification Proofs 3. If applicant in Final Year of any qualification Exam. Attached admission receipt/fee-receipt copy 4. Caste Certificate if applicable 5. TSP/Saharia Tribe Area Certificate if applicable 6. Physically Handicap Certificate (Blind/Low vision/Visually Handicapped/Hearing impairment/Loco-motive/C.P.Disorder etc.) if applicable 7. Widow/Divorcee concerned certificate if applicable 8. Ex. Serviceman certificate if applicable 9. Departmental candidate certificate if applicable 10. Ministerial Employee/Non-Gazetted Employee certificates if applicable 11. Govt. Service/Panchaytee Raj/Public Sector Employees certificate if applicable 12. Caste Certificate if applicable 5. TSP/Saharia Tribe Area Certificate if applicable 6. Physically Handicap Certificate (Blind/Low vision/Visually Handicapped/Hearing impairment/Loco-motive/C.P.Disorder etc.) if applicable 7. Widow/Divorcee concerned certificate if applicable 8. Ex. Serviceman certificate if applicable 9. Departmental candidate certificate if applicable 10. Ministerial Employee/Non-Gazetted Employee certificates if applicable 11. Govt. Service/Panchaytee Raj/Public Sector Employees certificate if applicable 12. Outstanding Sportsman certificate (s) if applicable 13. NCC Cadet certificate(s) if applicable 14. Other Specification/Qualification certificate(s) if applicable 15. Experience as per advertisement if applicable 16. Internship certificate (s) if applicable 7. It may be relevant that S. Nos. 10 and 11 to which we are concerned for the present purpose, those who are ministerial employee, non-gazetted employee and those who are in Government service, panchayati raj, public sector employee have to indicate and tick in the appropriate box. In furtherance of the advertisement which was initially published, a corrigendum No. 10/2014-15 came to be published by the Commission on 31.10.2014 and below the tabular statement of the post of Junior Accountant, it was categorically mentioned that 437 posts are reserved for the ministerial staff and the last date of submission of on-line application was extended to 21.11.2014 (mid-night) with a further facility provided that such of the candidates who have earlier filled their application, if want to change their order of preference or want to edit their application, can do so on depositing the prescribed fee. Note-8 of corrigendum dt. 31.10.2014 being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced ad infra:- ^^8- iwoZ esa vkosfnr vH;FkhZ ;fn vius lsok izkFkfedrk Øe dk cnyuk pkgrs gS] rks vk;ksx dh osc&lkbZV ij miyC/k Edit Application es fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd jkf'k :Ik;s 100@& dk Vksdu izkIr dj Online la'kks/ku dj ldrs gSA dsoy izkFkfedrk Øe esa cnyko gsrq mRgsa iqu% vkosnu djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA^^ 8. A further corrigendum No. 01/2015-16 was notified in furtherance thereto on 16.04.2015 because of the change of vacancies and again the facility was provided to the candidates to edit their application and the last date was further extended upto 15.06.2015 (mid-night). The note-6 of corrigendum dt. A further corrigendum No. 01/2015-16 was notified in furtherance thereto on 16.04.2015 because of the change of vacancies and again the facility was provided to the candidates to edit their application and the last date was further extended upto 15.06.2015 (mid-night). The note-6 of corrigendum dt. 16.04.2015 being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced ad infra:- ^^6- vkosfnr vH;FkhZ vk;ksx dh osc&lkbZV ij miyC/k Edit application ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd tek djok dj vkWu&ykbZu vkosnu esa la'kks/ku fnukad 16-05-2015 ls fnuakd 15-06-2015 ¼jkf= 12-00 cts½ rd dj ldrs gSA blds i'pkr fyad fuf"Ø; gks tk,xkA bl lac/k esa vH;FkhZ vk;ksx dh osc&lkbZV ij ^^vkWu ykbZu vkosnu la'kks/ku dh izfØ;k^^ dk vko';d :i ls v/;;u dj ysA^^ 9. Under general instructions issued by the Commission which is on the website, copy whereof is available on record Annex. R-2/3. In regard to the serving employees of the State Government, there are certain provisions for relaxation in age/experience for the ministerial staff, Govt. Under general instructions issued by the Commission which is on the website, copy whereof is available on record Annex. R-2/3. In regard to the serving employees of the State Government, there are certain provisions for relaxation in age/experience for the ministerial staff, Govt. employees as to what is the procedure they have to follow, is being available in the general instructions at Para-4, which reads ad infra:- ^^4- jktdh; lsokjr deZpkjh lEca/kh izko/kku & fofHkUu esa jktLFkku jkT; ds lsokjr deZpkfj;ksa vkfn ds fy, fo'ks"k izko/kku gS] ftuesa dqN esa dsoy vk;q lac/kh f'kfFkyrk nh tkrh gS vkSj dqN esa {kSfrt vkj{k.kA lkekU;r;k jktdh; deZpkjh ds :i esa lsok fu;eksa ds varxZr vk;q lhek esa fo'ks"k NwV dk izko/kku gksrk gS o mlds vyx&vyx mioxksZ tSls &vjktif=r deZpkjh ea=kyf;d deZpkjh vFkok foHkkxh; deZpkjh gksus ij vkj{k.k dk izko/kku gks ldrk gSA bl izdkj ,d dkfeZd mDr esa ls nksuks vFkok fdlh ,d ykHk dk ik= gks ldrk gSA ;g ykHk Hkh lsok fu;e ds v/;/khu gksrk gSA vH;FkhZ bl laca/k esa foLr`r foKkiu ds vuq:i dk;Zokgh djsA bl lac/ka esa fo'ks"kr% nks fcUnq /;ku esa j[ks & 1- mDr ykHk dsoy jktLFkku jkT; ds deZpkfj;ksa dks izkIr gS] vU; dks ugha] vFkkZr~ vU; jkT; ds deZpkjh ;k dsUnz lsok ds deZpkjh lkekU; gh ekusa tk,xsa vkSj os bl dkWye dks u HkjsA blds lkFk gh ;g Hkh /;ku j[ks fd ;g ykHk dsoy LFkkbZ deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, gSA vLFkkbZ rnFkZ ;k lafonk ij fu;qDr dkfeZd bl ykHk ds ik= ugha gksaxsA 2- oLrqr% vf/kdka'k ijh{kkvksa es jkT; deZpkjh ds :i es dsoy vk;q lhek esa NwV dk izko/kku gS vkSj foHkkxh; deZpkjh] ea=kyf;d deZpkjh rFkk vjktif=r deZpkjh gksus ij gh mls vfrfjDr :Ik ls vkj{k.k dk ykHk izkIr gksrk gSA izR;sd foHkkxh; deZpkjh] ea=kyf;d deZpkjh rFkk vjktif=r deZpkjh jkT; deZpkjh rks gksrk gS fdUrq izR;sd jkT; deZpkjh foHkkxh; deZpkjh] ea=kyf;d deZpkjh rFkk vjktif=r deZpkjh ugh gksrk gSA tks vH;FkhZ jktdh; deZpkjh ds lkFk&lkFk foHkkxh; deZpkjh] ea=kyf;d deZpkjh rFkk vjktif=r deZpkjh gS dsoy os gh bl dkye dks Hkjs vU;Fkk ughA foHkkxh; deZpkjh ds vUrZxr Hkh dsoy mlh foHkkx ds vH;FkhZ ik= ekus tkrs gS] ftuds fy, ijh{kk vk;ksftr dh tk jgh gS vkSj muds fy, lsok fu;eksa esa vkj{k.k dk izko/kku gSA^^ 10. It appears that as an abundant caution, a press note was published by the Commission before holding the written examination and affording facility to the candidates dt. It appears that as an abundant caution, a press note was published by the Commission before holding the written examination and affording facility to the candidates dt. 10.08.2016 (Annex. R-2/4) that since the examination being scheduled to be held on 01.10.2016, a further facility was provided to the candidates who want to make any edit in their application, may carry out corrections after depositing the prescribed fee and this facility was available from 11.08.2016 to 25.08.2016 (mid-night) with a further specific note that no application thereafter for editing on-line application shall be entertained. This court considers it appropriate to quote the press note dt. 10.08.2016 released by the Commission providing last & final call to the candidates to edit their on-line application, which reads ad infra:- ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr la'kks/ku 'kqYd tek djok dj vkWu ykbZu vkosnu esa vko';d la'kks/ku fnukad 11-08-2016 ls 25-08-2016 rd ¼jkf= 12-00 cts½ rd dj ldrs gS] blds i'pkr fyad fuf"Ø; gks tk,xkA vkWu ykbZu la'kks/ku dh izfØ;k ds rgr tks la'kks/ku fd;s tkuk laHko ugha gks ik jgs gS] vH;FkhZ ,sls la'kks/ku vkWQ ykbZu lfpo] jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx] vtesj dks izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk crkSj vko';d 'kqYd :i;s 300@& ds Hkkjrh; iksLVy vkWMZj] vkbZ-Mh- izwQ] vkWu ykbZu vkosnu i= dh izfr ds lkFk vk;ksx dk;kZy; esa ijh{kk fnukad 01-10-2016 ls iwoZ izLrqr dj djok ldrs gSA ijh{kk fnukad 01-10-2016 ls iwoZ izLrqr dj djok ldrs gSA ijh{kk fnukad ds mijkar =qfV la'kks/ku lEca/kh dksbZ izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj ugh fd, tka,xsA bl lEca/k esa vH;FkhZ vk;ksx dh osc lkbV ij ^^vkWu ykbZu ,oa vkWQ ykbZu vkosnu la'kks/ku dh izfØ;k^^ dk vko';d :i ls v/;;u dj ysA^^ 11. It may be relevant to note that under proviso (iii) of R.6 of the Rules, 1963, 12 1/2% of the posts Junior Accountants, to be filled in by direct recruitment, have been reserved for being filled in from amongst the ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government who are holding a substantive post in the cadre and has to be a member of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1999 or Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970. 12. The present petitioners as alleged that they are ministerial employees but while filling the on-line application there are separate Cls. 12. The present petitioners as alleged that they are ministerial employees but while filling the on-line application there are separate Cls. (10) & (11), of which reference has been made, the candidate has to indicate that he intends to appear as a ministerial employee/non-gazetted employee or as a Government Service/Panchayati Raj/Public Sector employee for participation in the selection process but indisputably despite the facility being available for availing the benefit of reservation of 12 1/2%, as contemplated proviso (iii) to R.6 of the Rules, 1963, each of them failed to indicate that he is a ministerial employee in the department of the Government holding the post in substantively capacity. 13. It may be noticed that against 437 vacancies of Junior Accountant reserved for ministerial employees, in all 3070 candidates submitted their on-line application and participated in the selection process against 12 1/2% quota reserved for ministerial staff of the departments of Government. 14. In the writ petition from which the facts have been noticed - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16010/2016 [Ramavtar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.], there is no averment in the writ petition as to when the petitioner was appointed as Clerk Gr. II and whether he is still a member of the Rules, 1999. Same is the case in another writ petition - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16720/2016 [Vinay Mohan Kiradoo Vs. RPSC & Ors.], he worked as Lower Division Clerk in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner and indisputably he is not a member of the Rules, 1999 and employees of ministerial cadre in the District Courts are not the employees working in the departments of the Government entitled to participate against 12 1/2% quota reserved for ministerial employees. 15. Leave apart, the factual matrix from which the facts have been noticed by this court, either of the petitioner despite an opportunity being afforded failed to indicate in their on-line application that he intends to appear as a ministerial employee availing 12 1/2% quota reserved of Junior Accountant for them, in reference to which the selection process was initiated by the Commission. 16. 16. The written examination was held on 04.10.2016 and the result of written examination of the post of Junior Accountant & Tehsil Revenue Accountant was declared/published on 07.11.2016 with cut-off marks & date of birth of all the categories including that of the ministerial employees according to which the cut-off marks for ministerial employee for the post of Junior Accountant is 424.33 and date of birth is 20.07.1989. 17. After the final result being published by the Commission of the candidates who are selected along with cut-off marks, the petitioner rushed to this court by filing writ petitions with the grievance that they have secure more marks than the cut-off marks indicated by the Commission of the category of Ministerial Employees and this court may direct the Commission to grant them permission to change their category to Ministerial Employee and as they secured higher marks then the cut-off marks which has been notified by the Commission of the category of Ministerial Employees, they may be permitted to participate in the selection process and obviously, if they are otherwise found suitable, may be considered for appointment under the scheme of Rules of 1963. 18. The main thrust of submission of counsel for the petitioners is that in the on-line application, it was not that specifically mentioned/indicated about the category of ministerial employee/non-gazetted employee and it is all because of ambiguity in the form the petitioners could not properly indicate in their on-line application about the category in which they intend to participate in the process of selection, thus, the opportunity which has been afforded by the Commission from time to time will not be of any consequence since it was never made known to the candidates that there is a reservation for the ministerial employees and they can independently participate in the process initiated by the Commission for the post of Junior Accountant and they should not be made to suffer on account of the faulty description in the online application uploaded by the Commission, the petitioners should not deprive from their legitimate right of fair consideration more so when the marks secured in the written examination which is the basis for final selection is higher than the cut-off marks of the category of Ministerial Employees and as per their marks secured in the written examination, at least may be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Accountant. 19. 19. Reply to the petition has been filed by the Commission and it has been specifically stated that apart from on-line application which was initially filled by the candidates pursuant to the advertisement dt. 18.09.2013, it was specifically indicated that 437 vacancies are reserved for Ministerial Employees and opportunity was afforded to the candidates to edit their application if so desire and it was not once but at least on three different occasions opportunity was afforded to the candidates to avail the facility of editing their on-line application by depositing the prescribed fee on-line and even when the scheduled of holding written examination was notified still prior thereto facility was provided to the candidates to edit their application, if so desired, from 11.08.2016 to 25.08.2016 (mid-night) vide press note dt. 10.08.2016 with a note that since the examination is scheduled to be held on 01.10.2016, no such facility of editing the on-line application shall be permitted thereafter and that was a final call and it was also notified that the candidates may look into their online application and if any column deserves to be edited, they may edit their on-line application and avail the facility after depositing the prescribed fee but none of the petitioners availed the facility to edit his on-line application despite opportunity being afforded prior to holding of the written examination and they want to switched over from their respective category to the category of ministerial employee being beneficial after the final result has been declared only for the reason that they secured higher marks than the cutoff marks in the category of Ministerial Employees and this cannot be now permitted at this belated stage and it will certainly take away the legitimate claim of the candidates who have participated in the process as Ministerial Employees their rights will certainly be jeopardized if such a permission is now being granted to the petitioners. 20. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material on record. 21. The facts are not in dispute that all the petitioners filled their on-line application either initially pursuant to the advertisement dt. 20. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material on record. 21. The facts are not in dispute that all the petitioners filled their on-line application either initially pursuant to the advertisement dt. 18.09.2013 or after the corrigendum came to be notified at a later point of time affording facility to the candidates to edit their on-line application and this fact can be noticed that against 437 vacancies reserved for Ministerial Employees in all 3070 candidates of ministerial staff filled their on-line application against 12 1/2% quota reserved for ministerial employees and was open for the candidate to take its own decision while filling his/her on-line application about the category in which one intends to participate in the selection process. The on-line application form is self explanatory indicating the separate categories with an option for the candidate to select he intends to appear in the category including Ministerial Employee/non-gazetted employee or in his vertical reserved category and that leaves no manner of doubt that the self explanatory description was made available to the candidates when the on-line application was being filled. 22. At the same time, not once but on three different occasions, this facility was afforded to the candidates to edit their on-line application after depositing the prescribed fee and even before holding the written examination, a press note was again published by the Commission on 10.08.2016 that those who are still interested to edit their application, on depositing the prescribed fee, may avail the facility between 11.08.2016 to 25.08.2016 (mid-night) with a further note that after appearing in the written examination, no such facility to edit their application will be afforded. 23. Either of the petitioner failed to avail the facility afforded by the Commission on different occasions to edit their on-line application and indisputably did not appear as Ministerial Employee and after the result of the written examination was declared on 07.11.2016 with a separate cut-off marks of the Ministerial Employees being notified and after ascertaining their position being higher than the cut-off marks in the category of ministerial employee rushed to this court and filed the instant batch of writ petitions with manifold grievances that fair opportunity has not been afforded to them in editing their on-line application indicating that they are also Ministerial Employees of the departments of Government holding a post in the cadre substantively. 24. 24. The coordinate Bench of this court while examining the self same question as to whether a candidate can be allowed to change its category after declaration of result in a competitive examination, negated the submissions made by the writ petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6669/2012 [Manish Sinsinwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] decided on 03.05.2012 and the coordinate Bench was of the view that if edit in on-line application is permitted after declaration of result, no sanctity can be attached to the selection process & held that after the cut-off marks is declared of separate categories, any change of category, as prayed for, would certainly affect the result and if the candidate is allowed to change or alter his category after declaration of result, principles of estoppel may apply as it will affect result of the last candidate selected in the category, with cut-off marks, being indicated, without he being at fault. 25. In addition to it, what is being prayed for, in the instant case, by the petitioner for change of their category in the opinion of this court is not tenable and there should be more than one reason for coming to this conclusion. On the face of the clear and unambiguous instructions contained in the advertisement issued by the Commission against 437 vacancies of ministerial employees, in all 3070 candidates of ministerial staff filled their on-line applications and appeared in the written examination against the vacancies reserved for ministerial employee and theory of lack of information or ambiguity in the instructions is an afterthought to shadow their fault and the candidates cannot be allowed to change the category, as claimed, after declaration of result, even if it is due to a bona fide mistake that wrong column was ticked by the candidate in the on-line application and he is bound by such mistake and liable to face the consequences. 26. In the opinion of this Court, if a different view is taken in the matter, it will unnecessarily lead to confusion to the Commission in processing the applications and will also open opportunities for manipulations in dealing with the face of candidates appearing for such examinations. It is in public interest that the instructions contained in the notification published by the Commission are strictly followed and scrupulously adhered to not only by the candidates but also by the Commission. It is in public interest that the instructions contained in the notification published by the Commission are strictly followed and scrupulously adhered to not only by the candidates but also by the Commission. Even if the mistake is considered to be bona fide mistake, larger public interest demands insistence of observance of instructions rather than its breach and this court is of the further view that what has been attempted to be achieved by the instructions was to minimize any possibility or chance of any abuse. 27. There may be a situation where the necessary certificates, as demanded, might not have been annexed in support of the category indicated in the on-line application but where the candidate intends to change the category that too after the written examination being held and declaration of result, it is certainly not permissible more so when in the instant case ample opportunity was afforded to the candidates by the Commission to edit their application, if so desired, even at the stage before the written examination was scheduled to be held on 01.10.2016. 28. Indisputably, either of the petitioner does not fall in the cutoff marks notified in their respective category and that appears to be the sole reason in harping upon that they being the Ministerial Employee working in the departments of Government holding the post in the cadre substantively may be permitted to change their category after the final result came to be published by the Commission, which as already observed by this court, is not permissible and even if it is considered to be a bona fide mistake, the petitioners are bound by such mistake and are liable to face the consequences and the petitioners deserve to be considered in the category which they have indicated in their on-line application and change at this stage is not permissible and may not be in conformity with the instructions notified by the Commission. 29. This court is of the view that when the instructions are in unequivocal terms and the candidate has to indicate the category in which he intends to participate in the selection process and after ample opportunity being afforded if one failed to edit the online application, in absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, this court is of the view that such request for change of category after declaration of result deserves to be summarily rejected. 30. 30. Consequently, this court finds no substance in the instant batch of writ petitions and accordingly the same stands dismissed. No costs.