JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S Somayajulu, J. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him, as per the marks i.e., 57.6 marks published by the respondents, for the post of Energy Assistant (JLM Gr. III). 2. The claim of the petitioner before this Court is that he has applied for the post of Energy Assistant (JLM Gr. III) as per the Notification dated 02.08.2019. He was shortlisted and called for the physical test. At the time of verification, the certificates were verified. As the petitioner met the eligibility criteria he was allowed to participate in the physical test. He had completed the physical tests and ultimately he was awarded total marks of 57.6. The select list was published on 30.09.2019, and the petitioner realised that several other persons, who got similar marks, were selected and he was overlooked. At that stage he realised that at the time of uploading of the certificates the marks obtained by the petitioner in the 10th Class were typed as 36 marks instead of 38 marks and therefore, the petitioner's case was overlooked. The petitioner's case is he has actually secured 38 marks and not 36 marks. Therefore, he made a representation on 07.10.2019 to the respondent authorities to consider his case, since if his marks are taken as 38 he would be selected. As the representation of the petitioner's case was not considered, he filed the present Writ Petition seeking the relief in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to appoint him for the post of Energy Assistant (JLM Gr.II). 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of both the respondents. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the APSPDCL is based upon the averments made in the counter. He states that the period of four days between 21.08.2019 and 25.08.2019 was given to correct any errors and defects in the data that is entered through online mode. Learned Standing Counsel submits that 7000 candidates corrected the defects / differences in the applications. The petitioner did not make any correction whatsoever and thereafter the prescribed tests were held. It is also mentioned that the respondents had informed all these candidates, including the petitioner, by way of SMS sent to their registered mobile numbers to correct the errors if any. The petitioner did not make any correction whatsoever and thereafter the prescribed tests were held. It is also mentioned that the respondents had informed all these candidates, including the petitioner, by way of SMS sent to their registered mobile numbers to correct the errors if any. It is stated that the petitioner did not make any corrections whatsoever. Thereafter, the physical tests were held and the final cut of marks were placed on the official website on 28.08.2019. Learned counsel also relies upon the terms and conditions of the recruitment notification, which clearly state that if there is any discrepancy between the actual certificates and the details mentioned in the form, the candidature will be rejected. Apart from this learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the process of appointment was completed in September, 2019; appointment orders were also issued to the eligible candidates on 01.10.2019 and the successful candidates were asked to join on 02.10.2019. He points out that as on date there are no vacancies available in SPSR Nellore District. 4. In reply to this counter affidavit the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit. In this it is mentioned that out of 577 candidates, which was notified for the post of Energy Assistants (JLM Grade-II) by the respondent in relation to Nellore District, only 567 vacancies were filled up and thus 10 clear vacancies are available and are lying vacant. It is also mentioned that apart from 10 clear vacancies one more person by name Sri Animeti Rajesh has not joined the services. Learned counsel submits that by uploading lesser marks i.e., 36 marks instead of higher marks, petitioner does not stand to gain anything and that therefore this is a fit case in which the Court should interfere. He also relies upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi Arkshit Kapoor v Union of India and Ors., (2017) LawSuit(Del) 3745 and relies upon para-10 of the Order, wherein it is mentioned that the mistake committed by the candidate therein did not have any effect on the eligibility of the petitioner. Therefore, relying on this, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the mistake was in consequential and that the correction of the mistake will not disrupt the selection process. Therefore, relying on this, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the mistake was in consequential and that the correction of the mistake will not disrupt the selection process. He also points out that the passages relied upon from the judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra v UOI, WP (C) No.11642 of 2016 (Delhi High Court), in para-13 of the said judgment. He lastly relies upon para-20 of the order and argues that the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner is invalid and he should be considered. 5. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents filed his written instructions dated 26.11.2019 issued in the form of a letter, wherein it is mentioned that appointment orders were already issued and that five posts were vacant in BC-C category only. Learned Standing Counsel argues that the only vacancies that are available in BC-C category only and these were carry forwarded. Therefore, he states that there is no vacancy at present. 6. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that there is no dispute about the essential facts that are pleaded by either party in this case. That the petitioner submitted an application is not in doubt, it is also not in doubt that the petitioner was shortlisted and asked to come for the physical tests. It is also a fact that thereafter he was rejected, during the verification of the certificates as his marks did not tally with the uploaded data. The question that falls for consideration is whether in line with the judgment quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and whether in the absence of any allegations of mala fides etc., can the petitioner be deprived of the result. As a corollary it also has to be decided whether the petitioner has sought the relief in the appropriate form, as it is clearly mentioned that eligible candidates were given their call letters on 01.10.2019 itself. 7. Today, as the situation emerges, it is clear that the respondents are not alleging that the petitioner has committed any mala fide action in order to get an admission or to be considered eligible. He, in fact, made a mistake in noting the marks as 36 when he actually secured 38. His case is not any way strengthened by this mistake. He, in fact, made a mistake in noting the marks as 36 when he actually secured 38. His case is not any way strengthened by this mistake. Even in the counter affidavit that is filed, there is no allegation that this is a mala fide action or action tainted with an ulterior motive. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also applicable. In that case also their Lordship of the Delhi High Court held that mere fact that he has filled a wrong date of birth will not disrupt the selection process. He was eligible even according to the wrongly entered date also. In this case also the eligibility of the candidate is there even with regard to the marks as uploaded by him. The fact also remains that 7000 candidates had made a mistake as can be seen from the counter affidavit. A window was also given to the petitioner and others to correct the same. The petitioner did not correct the mistake. The representation of the petitioner was made on 07.10.2019, but as can be seen from the counter affidavit the appointment letters were already issued on 01.10.2019. The subsequent clarification dated 26.01.2019, issued in the form of written instructions to the learned Standing Counsel, clarifies that vacancies that are there are only in the BC-C category, which were already carried forwarded. It is clearly mentioned in writing that there are no vacancies at all. While it is true the form provides for a summary rejection of the candidature of a candidate if the details are wrongly filled up the fact remains in this case the petitioner did not stand to gain because of the wrong entry. Therefore, following the Division Bench Judgment that is cited, this Court has decided to pass a just fair and equitable relief. The cancellation of the candidatures of the petitioner is held to be arbitrary. The relief is however moulded. 8. This Court directs that the petitioner shall be considered for the next recruitment batch commencing after the present judgment, if he is otherwise eligible in other aspects. However, he will not be entitled to claim any benefit in terms of the seniority or otherwise on the basis of his selection vide Notification dated 02.08.2019. With these directions the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, he will not be entitled to claim any benefit in terms of the seniority or otherwise on the basis of his selection vide Notification dated 02.08.2019. With these directions the Writ Petition is disposed of. This Court has to adopt this relief because candidates have already joined and the vacancies if any are only in BC-C category but not in OC category, to which the candidate belongs. The candidates who have already joined are not before this Court also. No order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.