ORDER : The petitioner appeared in the written examination for appointment to the post of Constable (General) in District Bhilwara, as held pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.5.2018. 2. It has been submitted that OMR answer sheet of the petitioner was not checked denying the petitioner an opportunity of consideration for appointment to the post of Constable (General). It has been prayed that the respondents be directed to check the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner and in the event of his having passed the written examination with reference to the petitioner’s marks determined for the purpose for District Jhalawar where he applied, he be allowed to participate further in the recruitment process including the Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. 3. On notice, reply to the petition has been filed. It has been submitted that lakhs of candidates appeared at written examination for the post of Constable. The conditions of the advertisement dated 25.5.2018 more particularly condition no. 13 (xii) thereof provide that OMR answer sheets of the candidates would be checked by Computer. It has been submitted that the process being computerized, it was incumbent upon the candidates to fill up their roll numbers properly and also to answer the questions clearly by filling up the relevant circle in the answers to the corresponding questions. It has been submitted that the petitioner did not fill up his roll number properly at the time of appearing and writing the examination in issue. Resultantly the process being computerized and the petitioner’s roll number being in-complete, the petitioner’s answer sheet could not be checked and he was not marked therefor. It has been submitted that in the circumstance the petitioner is a victim of his own carelessness and no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to the respondents in not marking the petitioner’s OMR answer sheet in the facts stated. 4. Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore appearing for the petitioner submitted that failure of the petitioner to fill up his full / complete roll number at the time of written examination for the post of Constable was an act of human error for which the petitioner ought not to be denied consideration of being evaluated for the written examination. 4. Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore appearing for the petitioner submitted that failure of the petitioner to fill up his full / complete roll number at the time of written examination for the post of Constable was an act of human error for which the petitioner ought not to be denied consideration of being evaluated for the written examination. Equity has been pleaded and it has been stated that the petitioner’s OMR answer sheet should now be checked, after requisite rectification of roll number, by the computer or even manually. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. In the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, this Court does indeed direct that harmless errors in the application form submitted on-line be rectified. Yet it is not a principle of universal application dehors given facts which are relevant for the court’s exercise of its equitable jurisdiction. In the instant case, the entire evaluation of the written examination of candidates appearing for recruitment of Constable under the advertisement dated 25.5.2018 was computerized. It was also clearly stated in instruction no. 13(xii) of the advertisement dated 25.5.2018 that as evaluation was through computerization and impersonal process, the form be filled cautiously and necessary information be furnished by each candidate. The most important of the requisite information in the OMR answer sheet would indeed be and was the roll number of the candidate. The petitioner admittedly failed to fill up his full / correct roll number in his OMR answer sheet for reason of which it could not be evaluated by the computer. The recruitment to the post of Constables is presently largely complete including for District Bhilwara where the petitioner applied. Candidates have been selected and appointed after a long drawn process and are presently under training. Third party rights have therefore been created. No separate computer processes can now be directed to be adopted for the petitioner’s evaluation after rectification of his roll number in his OMR answer sheet. 7. In this view of the matter, I am not in the facts of the case inclined to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in the instant petition. 8. The petition is dismissed.