JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. The prayer in the present writ petition is to consider the petitioner under O.B.C. Women category instead of General/O.B.C. (Creamy Layer) category for appointment to the post of Prosecution Officer with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts in short are that 284 vacancies of the Prosecution Officer Cadre for the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service were advertised on 15.05.2015 and 15.07.2015. The Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 are applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner filled up online application form and while operating the option in terms of category concerned, she exercised the option General/O.B.C. (Creamy Layer) instead of selecting the option of O.B.C. Women category. 3. While praying for change of the category, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same was on account of bona-fide error. She came to know about the mistake when the result of the preliminary examination was announced on 22.12.2015. She had more marks than the cut off marks under the O.B.C. Women category and her marks were lower than the cut off marks of General/O.B.C. (Creamy Layer) category. It is further stated that the selection process in pursuance to the recruitment in question is still incomplete and the interview is yet to be held and only documents verification has been done in that respect. It is further stated that only 12 days were given before the preliminary examination vide Press Note dated 06.10.2015 to carry out the corrections and rectify the errors, if any, in the application form. It is further stated that the petitioner had admittedly appeared in person on 05.01.2016 i.e. prior to the scheduled date for verification of the documents on 07.01.2016 and also filed the representation along with her O.B.C. certificate. But no decision has been taken on her representation till date. 4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Datar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9170/2012) decided on 11.09.2012 as well as judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman JEE and others reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779 . 5. Reply has been filed. 6. As per the reply, the petitioner had applied under the General/O.B.C. (Creamy Layer) category. The last date of the filing of the application form was 27.07.2015. 5. Reply has been filed. 6. As per the reply, the petitioner had applied under the General/O.B.C. (Creamy Layer) category. The last date of the filing of the application form was 27.07.2015. Whereas, the O.B.C. certificate was issued to the petitioner on 05.01.2016 i.e. even after the declaration of the result on 22.12.2015. The petitioner did not apply under the O.B.C. Women category and therefore, she was not considered under the said category. 7. A decision was taken on 22.04.2014 for providing opportunity to the candidates for correction/change in the category and a press note to the said effect was issued on 06.10.2015 with intimation that the candidates should download the admit card and if any error appears in the same, the candidates can rectify their option. As per the said press note, time was given to the candidates to make the correction uptil the date of the examination by submitting an application along with the prescribed fees of Rs. 300/-. The examination was held on 18.10.2015. Leave alone not filling the application within 12 days granted for rectification, she did not file the application for almost two months thereafter. The petitioner did not make any effort to exercise the said option till as such time, the result was declared and she found that she had not succeeded under the category of General/O.B.C. (Creamy Layer) and that she had more marks than the cut off marks in the O.B.C. Women category. On coming to know about the same, she allegedly filed the representation on 05.01.2016 i.e. after the declaration of the result on 22.12.2015. Even than, she took almost another 14 days to file the representation. The argument that the petitioner did not know that she had filled the wrong option till the result was declared is incorrect on the face of it. The category is mentioned in the admit card itself. As per the admit card, the category filled by the petitioner is General. In the said admit card itself, it has been mentioned that the correction in the category can be made by submitting an application along with prescribed fees of Rs. 300/- till the date of the examination. As stated above, the examination was held on 18.10.2015. For the sake of repetition, it is stated that the petitioner made no efforts till than and also did not make any effort thereafter till the declaration of the result. 300/- till the date of the examination. As stated above, the examination was held on 18.10.2015. For the sake of repetition, it is stated that the petitioner made no efforts till than and also did not make any effort thereafter till the declaration of the result. 8. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar case of Datar Singh (supra), the petitioner therein was allowed to rectify the error will not help as on date. That was a case of one time measure and of a time when the respondents introduced the process of submission of online application forms for the first time through “E-Mitra Kiosk” and “Jansuvidha Kendra” and the weakness of server was not absolutely ill-founded and the candidates were still getting accustomed to know new process of submission of online application through newly developed technology. It was in those circumstances that the candidates were allowed to rectify the error, if any. Thereafter, much time has passed and the law laid down in the case of Datar Singh (supra) no more holds field in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer vs. Hitesh Kumhar & Another (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 85/2016). The reliance placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Dolly Chhanda (supra) also does not help in the facts of the present case. In that case, the appellant was not able to produce correct proof of the possession of the said qualification on time. In the present case, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to change her category. In case, the said category had been filled by her as a mistake or was a bona-fide error, she would have immediately corrected the same within the stipulated period. However, the petitioner did not choose to change the option till as such time, the result was declared and she found that she was not successful in the category filled by her but could be easily adjusted in the category of O.B.C. Women, where she found that her marks were more than the cut off marks. It is at that point of time that the petitioner moved to change the category only as an afterthought and not an error. It is at that point of time that the petitioner moved to change the category only as an afterthought and not an error. It can be held as a bona-fide error but it appears that the petitioner wanting to take advantage after she found that she was unsuccessful in the category filled by her. Thus, the said judgment cannot come to rescue of the petitioner. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of any merit.