JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have appeared in the Court today in person. 2. The petitioners have put to challenge the impugned Corrigendum dated 05.09.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2, by which the petitioners have been disqualified from participating further in the Mizoram Civil Services (Combined Competitive) Main Examination, 2022, herein after referred to as the “Combined Examination, 2022” on the ground of being over-aged. Further, vide the said Corrigendum dated 05.09.2022, the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have been called to take part in the personal interview in place of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners’ case in brief is that they belong to the Scheduled Tribe category and they have been working as regular Government Servants for more than 4 years. Pursuant to the Advertisement No. 7/2020-21 dated 11.03.2021, for filling up the vacant posts of Junior Grade in various Services under the Government of Mizoram, the petitioners submitted their online applications. In terms of the Advertisement No. 7/20250-21 dated 11.03.2021, herein after referred to as the “Advertisement”, a total of 28 posts were to be filled up, out of which 7 + 1 (reserved for PwBD) posts were to be filled up in the Mizoram Civil Services (MCS in short). The 1 post mentioned above was reserved for persons with Benchmark Disabilities having (i) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; and (ii) multiple disabilities from amongst persons with blindness and low vision; deaf and hard of hearing; locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; including deaf-blindness. Vide Addendum dated 16.08.2021 issued by the respondent No. 1, the number of vacant posts of Junior Grade of MCS to be filled was enhanced to 14 + 1. The petitioners’ case is that they are only interested in the vacant posts of Mizoram Civil Services, wherein 14 posts was reserved for the “General Category Candidates” and 1 post was reserved for a “Person with Benchmark Disabilities.” 4. The State respondents thereafter issued Admit Cards to the petitioners for taking part in the Preliminary Examination, on the basis of the Final Valid List of Candidates dated 21.09.2021, issued by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 5. The State respondents thereafter issued Admit Cards to the petitioners for taking part in the Preliminary Examination, on the basis of the Final Valid List of Candidates dated 21.09.2021, issued by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 5. The petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 cleared the Preliminary Examination and their names were listed in the Preliminary Result List dated 07.01.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners were issued fresh Admit Cards for the Written Examination (Mains), wherein the Roll No. of the petitioner No. 1 was 200 and the Roll No. of the petitioner No. 2 was 300. The petitioners cleared the Written Examination (Mains) and they were accordingly listed at Serial Nos. 35 & 49 respectively in the Main Examination Result List dated 23.08.2022. 6. The petitioner No. 1 was informed through Mobile in the first week of September, 2022 that she was to face personal interview on 26.09.2022. On the other hand, the petitioner No. 2 was informed that he would be facing personal interview on 27.09.2022, vide letter dated 25.08.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2. Subsequently, to the surprise of the petitioners, the petitioners were informed that they were disqualified from further participating in the selection process, on the ground of them being over-aged, vide the impugned Corrigendum dated 05.09.2022. 7. The petitioners’ counsel submits that in terms of the conditions of eligibility provided at Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement, relaxation of age of a Schedule Tribe candidate was to be made upto 40 years, in terms of the Notification dated 03.06.2019, published in the Mizoram Gazette dated 10.06.2019. He submits that in terms of the Notification dated 03.06.2019, a Government Servant, who has worked for 3 continuous years on Regular, Workcharged, Contractual, Muster Roll or Adhoc/Officiating basis and who also belongs to the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe category are entitled to relaxation of age upto 45 years. 8. The petitioners’ counsel submits that a combined reading Rule 4 (3) of the Mizoram Civil Services (Combined Competitive) Examination Rules, 2020, herein after referred to as the “2020 Rules”, read with the Advertisement and Notification dated 03.06.2019, would go to show that a Government Servant, who also belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category, such as the petitioners, would have to be considered to be “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities” in accordance with the Notification dated 03.06.2019. In fact, all the 16 categories/classes of persons mentioned in the Notification dated 03.06.2019 would have to be considered to be “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities”, as there is no definition of “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities” in the Notification dated 03.06.2019. He further submits that the drop down menu in the online application form, allowed a Scheduled Tribe Government employee to avail of age relaxation as per the Notification dated 03.06.2019. He submits that in the column provided for “reservation/relaxation claimed” in the online application form, the petitioners had claimed reservation/relaxation as Scheduled Tribe Government Servants. As the applications of the petitioners had been accepted online, the relaxation provided to Scheduled Tribe Government Servants, in terms of Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 would have to be given to the petitioners. Besides the above submissions, the petitioners’ counsel also submits that prior to the petitioners being disqualified from taking further part in the selection process, no notice was issued to the petitioners. Accordingly, the principle of natural justice was violated. 9. The petitioners’ counsel also submits that the petitioner No. 1 had not attained the age of 40 years as on 01.08.2021 and as such, the petitioner No. 1 should be allowed to participate in the selection process/personal interview. 10. Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, on the other hand submits that a reading of Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement and the provisions of Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules, clearly show that no relaxation was to be provided to a Government Servant. He submits that though the petitioners could avail of the relaxation provided to Scheduled Tribe candidates, they could not avail of the relaxation given to Scheduled Tribe Government Servants, in terms of the Advertisement and the 2020 Rules. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 also submits that in terms of Clause 5 (2) of the 2020 Rules, the candidature of unqualified candidates can be cancelled at any time by the Public Service Commission, before or after the Preliminary Examination, Main (Written) Examination and personal interview. He accordingly submits that as the petitioners’ age cannot be relaxed upto 45 years, in terms of the Advertisement, the writ petition should be dismissed. He also submits that the age of the petitioner No. 1 had exceeded 40 years as on 01.08.2021. He accordingly submits that as the petitioners’ age cannot be relaxed upto 45 years, in terms of the Advertisement, the writ petition should be dismissed. He also submits that the age of the petitioner No. 1 had exceeded 40 years as on 01.08.2021. He also submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, by not issuing notice, prior to issuing the impugned Corrigendum dated 05.09.2022 by the respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 also submits that Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 cannot be applied, inasmuch as, the said Clause cannot override the provisions of Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules. 12. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 13. As can be seen from the foregoing paragraphs, the issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioners could have availed of the relaxation Clause provided to a Scheduled Tribe (ST in short) Government Servant, in terms of Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement and Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. 14. Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement provides that only 6 classes/categories of persons can avail of relaxation of the upper age limit out of a total of 16/17 classes/categories of persons provided in the Notification dated 03.06.2019. It may be clarified here that though the number of category of persons who can avail age relaxation, as per clause 6 the Notification dated 03.06.2019 are shown from Serial No. 1 to 16, Serial No. 1 contains two categories, i.e., Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As such, the total number of categories are actually 17, in terms of Clause 6 of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. The 6 classes/categories of persons, who can avail age relaxation as per the Advertisement are as follows:- (i) Scheduled Castes (ii) Scheduled Tribes (iii) Other Backward Classes (iv) Disabled Defence Services Personnel (v) Ex-servicemen including Commissioned Officers and Emergency Commissioned officers (ECO)/Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCO) (vi) Persons with Benchmarked Disabilities. 15. Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement states as follows:- “Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement. “6. 15. Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement states as follows:- “Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement. “6. Conditions of Eligibility: (3) He/She must have attained the age of 21 years but must not have exceeded the age of 35 years on 1st August, 2021; Provided that the upper age limit prescribed for direct recruitment will be relaxable only in the case of candidates belonging to the (i) Scheduled Castes, (ii) Scheduled Tribes, (iii) Other Backward Classes, (iv) Disabled Defence Services personnel (v) Ex-servicemen including Commissioned Officers and Emergency Commissioned Officers (ECO)/Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCO), and (vi) persons with benchmarked disabilities in accordance with the notification No. A-12011/1/2019-P&AR(GSW) dt. 03.06.2019 and published in the Mizoram Gazette extra ordinary issue No. 375 dt. 10.06.2019 as amended from time to time. Save as provided above, the upper age limit can in no case be relaxed.” 16. Clause 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules provide for only 6 categories/classes of persons, who can avail of relaxation of upper age limit, which is exactly similar to Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement. As the contents of Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules has been stipulated in Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement, with regard to “Conditions of Eligibility” of the candidates, this Court finds that Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules and Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement does not provide for Government Servants, who belong to the Scheduled Tribe category, to be given relaxation of the upper age limit provided in Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. 17. Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules states as follows:- 4. CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY.- In order to be eligible to compete at the examinations conducted under these rules, a candidate must satisfy the following eligibility conditions, namely:- 3) He/She must have attained the age of 21 years but must not have exceeded the age of 35 years on 1st August of the calendar year in which the advertisement for the examination is issued; Provided that the upper age limit prescribed for direct recruitment will be relaxable only in the case of candidates belonging to the (i) Scheduled Castes, (ii) Scheduled Tribes, (iii) other Backward Classes, (iv) Disabled Defence Services personnel (v) Ex-servicemen including Commissioned officers and Emergency Commissioned officers (ECO)/Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCO), and (vi) persons with benchmarked disabilities in accordance with the notification No. A-12011/1/2019-P&AR(GSW dt. 03.06.2019 and published in the Mizoram Gazette extra ordinary issue No. 375 dt. 10.06.2019 as amended from time to time. Save as provided above, the upper age limit can in no case be relaxed.” 18. Clause 6 of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 published in the Mizoram Gazette dated 10.06.2019, has been pleased to prescribe relaxation of the upper age limit for 16/17 categories/classes of persons, in respect of posts, which are to be filled by Direct Recruitment. The 16/17 categories/class of persons are as follows:- 1. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 2. Other Backward Class. 3. Persons with disabilities (vide Notification No. A. 12027/1/2011-P&AR (GSW) dated 21.02.2013. 4. Persons with disabilities belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe category (vide Notification No. A. 12027/1/2011-P&AR (GSW) dated 21.02.2013). 5. Persons with disabilities belonging to Other Backward Class category. 6. Candidates with three years continuous service in the State Government either on regular, work-charged, contract, muster roll or adhoc/officiating basis including those working under Centrally Sponsored Schemes. Up to 40 years of age (45 years for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes). 7. Ex-servicemen. 8. Disabled Defence services personnel. 9. Ex-personnel of Army Medical Corps (Short Service/Regular Commissioned Officer). 10. Ex-servicemen Emergency Commissioned Officer (ECO)/Short Service Commissioned Officer (SSCO). 11. Ex-General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) Personnel. 12. Whole Time Cadet Instructors in National Cadet Corp (NCC) who were released from NCC after the expiry of their initial/extended tenure. 13. Whole Time Cadet Instructors in National Cadet Corp (NCC) who were released from NCC before the expiry of their initial/extended tenure. 14. Meritorious Sportspersons. 15. Meritorious Sportspersons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category. 16. Retrenched State Government employees. 19. Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement provides for relaxation of the upper age limit in respect of only 6 categories of persons, out of the 16/17 categories of persons mentioned in the Notification dated 03.06.2019. Clause 6 (1) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 provides relaxation of the upper age limit by 5 years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In terms of Clause 6 (2) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019, the upper age limit of Other Backward Classes can be relaxed. Disabled Defence Services Personnel are listed at Clause 6 (8) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. Ex-servicemen including Commissioned Officers and Emergency Commissioned Officers (ECO)/Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCO) are listed at Clause 6 (10) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. Disabled Defence Services Personnel are listed at Clause 6 (8) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. Ex-servicemen including Commissioned Officers and Emergency Commissioned Officers (ECO)/Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCO) are listed at Clause 6 (10) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. Though “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities” are not specifically mentioned in the Notification dated 03.06.2019, they can be said to be listed in Clause 6 (3) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. Clause 6 (3) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 states as follows:- Sl.No. Category of persons to whom relaxation of age limit is admissible Categories of posts to which relaxation of upper age limit is admissible Extent of relaxation of upper age limit 3 Persons with disabilities (vide Notification No. A.12027/1/2011-P&AR (GSW) dated 21.02.2013) All posts identified suitable for persons with disabilities to be filled by direct recruitment 10 years The Notification No. A.12027/1/2011-P&AR (GSW) dated 21.02.2013 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, mentioned in Clause 6 (3) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 states as follows:- “NOTIFICATION “No.A.12027/1/2011-P&AR(GSW) dated the 21st February, 2013 : In continuation to this Department's Notification No.A.36012/1/2005-P&AR(GSW) dt. 7.7.2006 and in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with Sub-Section (1) of Section 38 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995, the Governor of Mizoram is pleased to order that relaxation of upper age limit shall be extended to Persons with Disabilities, for all cases of direct recruitment under the Government of Mizoram, upto 10(ten) years over and above the relaxation of upper age limit available to the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribes or other special categories of persons in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government or the Government of Mizoram from time to time. Provided that the relaxation shall be only for the identified posts for disabled persons as may be notified by the government of Mizoram from time to time. All the Service Rules/Recruitment Rules shall be treated as amended to this extent accordingly. This will come into force with immediate effect.” 20. Provided that the relaxation shall be only for the identified posts for disabled persons as may be notified by the government of Mizoram from time to time. All the Service Rules/Recruitment Rules shall be treated as amended to this extent accordingly. This will come into force with immediate effect.” 20. The provisions of the “Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, herein after referred to as the “1995 Act” and the Repealing Act, i.e. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, herein after referred to as the “2016 Act” being made for empowerment of persons having disabilities, the same is relatable to Clause 6 (3) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. Further, the definition of “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities”, as provided in Section 2 (r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, herein after referred to as the “2016 Act”, defines “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities” to mean a person with not less than 40% of a specified disability, where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability, where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the Certifying Authority. 21. The contention of the petitioners’ counsel that all the 16 categories/classes of persons mentioned in the Notification dated 03.06.2019 would have to be considered as “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities”, only on the ground that the definition of “Persons with Benchmark Facilities” is not provided in the said notification is not acceptable, due to Clause 6 (3) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019, the Notification No. A.12027/1/2011- P&AR (GSW) dated 21.02.2013 and the definition of “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities” provided in Section 2 (r) of the 2016 Act. 22. Accordingly, on considering the fact that Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement provides for age relaxation of “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities”, in terms of the Notification dated 21.02.2013, which relates to Section 2 (r) of the 2016 Act, this Court is of the view that the age relaxation to be given to “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities” would be relatable only to persons under Clause 6 (3) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. 23. Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 is reproduced below:- “Clause 6(6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. “6. 23. Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 is reproduced below:- “Clause 6(6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019. “6. In view of the savings clause in recruitment rules/ service rules as mentioned above, the Competent Authority is, therefore, pleased to prescribe the upper age limit for direct recruitment as follows for such services/posts whose recruitment rules/ service rules provided such savings clause: 6) Candidates with three years continuous service in the State Government either on regular, work-charged, contract, muster roll or adhoc/officiating basis including those working under Centrally Sponsored Schemes All posts filled by direct recruitment. This is essentially for candidates as mentioned at Column (2) working in posts which are in the same line or allied cadres and where a relationship could be established that the service already rendered in a particular post will be useful for the efficient discharge of the duties of the post being advertised for filling up. Up to 40 years of age (45 years for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes) 24. As per Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019, Government Servants, who also belong to the Scheduled Tribe category are eligible for relaxation of their upper age limit upto 45 years. As has been stated in the earlier paragraphs, the conditions of eligibility of a candidate, provided under Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement has been made in terms of Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules, which has specifically allowed for relaxation of the upper age limit of the candidates, in respect of only 6 categories/classes of persons out of 16 categories/classes of persons mentioned in the Notification dated 03.06.2019. As Government Servants, who belong to the Scheduled Tribe category have been left out from Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules and Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement, for relaxation of the upper age limit, this Court is of the view that the relaxation of age to be given to Scheduled Tribe Government Servants upto 45 years of age in terms of Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 cannot be availed of by the petitioners. As the Advertisement had been issued on the basis of the 2020 Rules, this Court does not find any infirmity with the decision of the respondent authorities, in continuing the selection process, on the basis of the criteria laid down in Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules and Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement. A comparative chart has been made in respect of the 6 (six) category of persons who can avail age relaxation in terms of the advertisement, vis-à-vis the corresponding category of persons in Clause 6 of the Notification dated 02.03.2006. The same is as follows:- Sl.No. Class/Category of persons who can avail of age relaxation as per Clause 6(3) of the Advertisement Corresponding Class/Category of persons who can avail age relaxation in terms of the specific Sub-Clauses of Clause 6 of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 (i) Scheduled Castes Clause 6(1) (ii) Scheduled Tribes Clause 6(1) (iii) Other Backward Classes Clause 6(2) (iv) Disabled Defence Services personnel Clause 6(8) (v) Ex-servicemen including Commissioned Officers and Emergency Commissioned Officers (ECO)/Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCO) Clause 6(10) (vi) Persons with benchmarked disabilities Clause 6(3) 25. With regard to the submission made by the petitioners’ counsel that the petitioners were below 40 years as on 01.08.2021, this Court finds that the Date of Birth of the petitioner No. 1 is 18.09.1980, while that of the petitioner No. 2 is 01.06.1980, in terms of the petitioners’ Birth Certificates annexed to the writ petition. In terms of Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement, a candidates’ age should not exceed 35 years as on 01.08.2021. The petitioners’ Dates of Birth being in the year 1980, it is crystal clear that the age of the petitioners would be beyond 40 years as on 01.08.2021. 26. With regard to the submission made by the petitioners’ counsel that notice should have been issued to the petitioners, prior to disqualifying the petitioners from taking part in the selection process, Rule 5 (2) of the 2020 Rules provides that the candidature of a candidate can be cancelled at any time before or after the Preliminary Examination, Main (Written Examination) and personal interview, if it is found that they do not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions. The petitioners not having fulfilled the eligibility condition of age, this Court is of the view that the issuance of notice to the petitioners would only amount to a useless formality. The petitioners not having fulfilled the eligibility condition of age, this Court is of the view that the issuance of notice to the petitioners would only amount to a useless formality. Further, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by not issuing prior notice to them, before disqualifying them for further participating in the selection process. Even if notice had been issued to the petitioners, the only outcome, would in any event lead to only one conclusion, i.e., that they were over-aged as on 01.08.2021. This Court is accordingly of the view that the impugned Corrigendum dated 05.09.2022 does not suffer from any infirmity, even though notice was not issued to the petitioners, as no prejudice was caused to them by the said fact. 27. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 , every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to the conclusion that the order passed is always null and void. The validity of the order has to be decided on the touchstone of “prejudice”. The ultimate test is always the same viz. the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. The same view was also reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B.Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . 28. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the petitioners online application form, wherein they had claimed relaxation as Scheduled Tribe Government Servants had been accepted, which indicates that their age relaxation should have been considered, in terms of Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019, cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that the eligibility conditions of the candidates, with regard to relaxation of age of Scheduled Tribe Government Servants, enumerated in Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 has not been provided/inserted in Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules and Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement. Further, there is no challenge to Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement or Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules. 29. Though this Court does not have any quarrel with the proposition/submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. Further, there is no challenge to Clause 6 (3) of the Advertisement or Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules. 29. Though this Court does not have any quarrel with the proposition/submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 cannot override the provisions of Rule 4 (3) of the 2020 Rules, this Court finds that the subject matter in issue is not with regard to whether the Notification dated 03.06.2019 over-rides the 2020 Rules. The discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs make it abundantly clear that Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 was never made applicable in the 2020 Rules and in the Advertisement. Accordingly, Clause 6 (6) of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 cannot be applied to the “eligibility conditions” of the candidates in terms of the Advertisement. Thus, the question of the Notification dated 03.06.2019 over-riding the 2020 Rules does not arise in this case. 30. In the case of Madan Mohan Sharma and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 724 , the Apex Court has held that once an advertisement had been issued on the basis of circular obtaining at that particular time, the effect would be that selection process should continue on the basis of criteria which were laid down. 31. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the petitioners have not made out a case for interference with the impugned Corrigendum dated 05.09.2022. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.