JUDGMENT : (Prayer in Rev.Apln No.7/2021: Review Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to review the order dated 7.02.2020 in W.P.No.2410 of 2020 passed by this Court. Prayer in Rev.Apln No.8/2021: Review Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to review the order dated 21.02.2020 in W.P.No.4209 of 2020 passed by this Court. Prayer in Rev.Apln No.9/2021: Review Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to review the order dated 21.02.2020 in W.P.No.4211 of 2020 passed by this Court. Prayer In Rev.Apln No.10/2021 :- Review Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to review the order dated 24.02.2020 in W.P.No.4592 of 2020 passed by this Court. Prayer in Rev.Apln No.11/2021 :- Review Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to review the order dated 28.02.2020 in W.P.No.5205 of 2020 passed by this Court.) 1. The issue involved in all these petitions are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and finally disposed through this common order. 2. The respondents in these review petitions filed writ petitions challenging the order passed by the 5thpetitioner is these petitions and for a consequential direction to permit them to correct the mistake that occurred while mentioning the District of domicile in the online application submitted by them. 3. The 1stpetitioner issued a notification calling for applications to fill up the post of constables (GD) in CAPFS, NIA and SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2018. The respondents succeeded in the written examination, physical test and in the medical test. However, their candidature was rejected by the 5thpetitioner on the ground that they have not given the correct information under the column District of Domicile. The District of domicile mentioned in the application and the one that was mentioned in the certificate produced by them were in variance. The particulars of the same is shown by way of a tabular column hereunder: S. No Name of the Respondent/ Writ Petitioner Review Petition No. Domicile mentioned in the Application Domicile certificate found during verification 1. The District of domicile mentioned in the application and the one that was mentioned in the certificate produced by them were in variance. The particulars of the same is shown by way of a tabular column hereunder: S. No Name of the Respondent/ Writ Petitioner Review Petition No. Domicile mentioned in the Application Domicile certificate found during verification 1. N. Rangaraj 7 of 2021 Madurai Theni 2. T. Singaravelan 8 of 2021 Kancheepuram Chennai 3. P. Seenu 9 of 2021 Kancheepuram Chennai 4. M. Arul 10 of 2021 Dharmapuri Krishnagiri 5. K.Arockia Kamaraj 11 of 2021 Tiruchirappalli Ariyalur 4. This Court without going into the merits of the claims made by the respondents, based on the concession given by the CGSC, allowed the writ petitions and permitted the respondents to carry out the corrections and further directed to proceed further with their selection in accordance with the notification. 5. These review petitions have been filed mainly on the ground that the concession was not given by the Central Government Standing Counsel after getting instructions from the petitioners and such a concession goes completely contrary to the terms and conditions of the notification issued by the 1stpetitioner and that it will have wide ramifications in view of the fact that it is a pan India selection. 6. Mr. R. Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India (hereinafter called as “ASG”) , appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the notification published by the 1stpetitioner in more than one place has clearly mentioned that the candidates must be very careful and should exercise due diligence while filing the online application and under no circumstances the change of domicile State and District will be entertained by the commission after submission of the application. The learned ASG submitted that the respondents are aware about this condition and after having participated in the selection, cannot be permitted to question the terms and conditions provided in the notification. 7. The learned ASG further submitted that considering the importance of the selection which was done on a pan India basis, there must be consistency in following the notification and if such leverage is given to the participants, it will have a cascading effect in preparing the final selection list. 7. The learned ASG further submitted that considering the importance of the selection which was done on a pan India basis, there must be consistency in following the notification and if such leverage is given to the participants, it will have a cascading effect in preparing the final selection list. The learned ASG submitted that a counsel cannot give concession contrary to terms and conditions of the notification without instructions from the department and such a concession will not bind the department. 8. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Domicile District will be more relevant only in the case of border districts or in Naxal affected districts. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no bar for carrying out minor corrections more particularly since the corrections sought to be made by the respondents is substantiated by the certificate issued by the competent authority to prove their domicile. The learned counsel further submitted that in cases of this nature, the real test is only to see if any prejudice will be caused to the respective parties by carrying out a minor correction by changing the domicile district and it can by no stretch cause any prejudice to the petitioners. 9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 10. There are 2 issues that requires consideration in these petitions and they are ; A. Whether the concession given by the Central Government Standing Counsel will bind the review petitioners and hence they cannot go back on such a concession? and B. Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents which requires reviewing the orders? 11. In so far as the 1stissue is concerned, the law is no longer res integra. Where a case has been decided on the basis of a wrong concession given by a counsel, the same will not be binding on the client. In the present case the notification issued by the 1stpetitioner which has a binding effect on the participants, cannot be watered down by a mere concession given by a Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government and that too without any instructions from the petitioners. In the present case the notification issued by the 1stpetitioner which has a binding effect on the participants, cannot be watered down by a mere concession given by a Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government and that too without any instructions from the petitioners. Useful reference can be made to the Division Bench Judgement of this Court in The Chairman, T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board vs. M. Madhan Kumarreported in (2020) 2 Writ L.R. 700. 12. In view of the above, it must be held that the concession given by the Central Government Standing Counsel will not bind the petitioners more particularly since such a confession goes contrary to the terms and conditions contained in the notification. The 1stissue is answered accordingly. 13. The main ground that has been raised by the respondents in the writ petitions is that by oversight they have mentioned a wrong domicile district in the application and they must be permitted to correct the error and mention the domicile district as per the certificate issued by the competent authority. 14. It is important for this court to first satisfy itself as to whether such mentioning of a wrong domicile district is an accidental error. Column No. 17 of the application provides for the candidates to select their domicile district from the drop-down menu as well as online and in the next column, they were again required to verify the domicile district form the dropdown menu. Both entries are independent of each other and the system will accept the information about the domicile district of the candidate only if the information given in both the columns matched perfectly. This is done to ensure that the candidate has more than one opportunity to make the correction if any mistake has been committed in filling up any one of the columns. The respondents have consciously filled in the same domicile district in both the columns and therefore it cannot be claimed that they have filled up a wrong District by accident. 15. It will also be relevant to take note of Clause 17 of the instructions given to candidates and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder: “Candidates are advised to be very careful and should exercise due diligence while providing information about domicile state and district in the online application form. 15. It will also be relevant to take note of Clause 17 of the instructions given to candidates and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder: “Candidates are advised to be very careful and should exercise due diligence while providing information about domicile state and district in the online application form. No request for change of domicile state and district will be entertained by the commission after submission of application form under any circumstances. If there is any variation of district and/or state mentioned by the candidate in the online application form and the domicile certificate submitted by them at the time of DME, their candidature will be cancelled forthwith and they will not be allowed to participate in DME”. 16. The above instruction makes it very clear that no request for change in domicile state and district will be entertained after submission of the application under any circumstance. This stipulation is made since it involves selection to a very sensitive post done on a pan India basis. The respondents are well aware about these instructions given to the candidates. 17. Even in the procedure/instructions given under Annexure (iii) for submission of online application, it is made very clear that after submission of final application, no change in any particulars shall be allowed. Even in the declaration made by the candidate they agree that the candidature is liable to be cancelled or rejected if the information provided is found to be incorrect at any stage. 18. The Jharkhand High Court has considered a similar issue in WP (S) No. 1721 of 2020 in Prakash Pawspan and Amr. V. The Secretary, Staff Selection and 2 ors., involving the same selection and by an order dt. 06.01.2021, held as follows: “In plethora of judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the procedure for appointment has been indicated, that needs to be followed and one of the judgments relied by Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India in the case of Bedanga Talukdar(supra) is on the same line. It is also well settled provision of law that once a candidate appeared after knowing the entire criteria of appointment and participated in the examination, he is estopped from raising any grievance. Subsequently, the judgment relied by Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India in the case of Bedanga Talukdar(supra) is on the same line. It is also well settled provision of law that once a candidate appeared after knowing the entire criteria of appointment and participated in the examination, he is estopped from raising any grievance. Subsequently, the judgment relied by Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India in the case of Nitish Kumar Pandey(supra) is also on the same line. So far, the judgment relied by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners of Madras High Court is concerned that order has been passed on the concession provided by the learned counsel appearing for the Central Government. So far, the judgment relied by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners of Bombay High Court is concerned on the ground of bonafide mistake, that has been allowed by Bombay High Court, however, this aspect of the matter has not been considered in that judgment as to whether procedure has been prescribed in the advertisement that will govern or any concession can be granted under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Thus, these two judgments relied by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners is not helping the petitioners. The argument of Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that Articles 14 and 16 is also not being accepted by the Court in view of the fact that negative equality cannot be allowed in favour of any person. Reference in this regard may be made in the case of State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohant reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 particularly para 56 which is quoted hereinbelow: - 56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K, Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal.) As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion, no relief can be extended to the petitioners.” 19. v. Jagjit Singh, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K, Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal.) As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion, no relief can be extended to the petitioners.” 19. This Court is in complete agreement with the findings given by the Jharkhand High Court. Once a candidate has participated in a selection after knowing the terms and conditions, he will not be allowed to wriggle out of the same subsequently. Such strict interpretation is required since the selection in question is a pan India Selection and different yard sticks cannot be followed in different states and there must be uniformity in the selection. If any concession is allowed for even a single candidate, everyone will start claiming for such a concession across India and in such an event, the entire selection will come to a grinding halt. 20. The Order was passed in the Writ Petitions only on the concession made by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel without taking into consideration the terms and conditions prescribed in the notification and hence the Order passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and it requires to be reviewed by this Court. The second issue is answered accordingly. 21. In view of the above discussions, all these review petitions are allowed and the writ petitions filed by the respondents shall stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.