JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition seeking mandamus for correction of the entries made in the application form has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant indisputably belongs to non-gazetted government employee category. It was only by inadvertent mistake that while submitting the application form, the said mention could not be made. However, even before the start of the main examination, when it was realized after receipt of the admit card, immediately an application for correction was made. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the judgments, which have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition, are distinguishable on facts because those were the cases where the correction was not carried out within the time limit prescribed in the admit cards, whereas in the present case, no time limit has been prescribed in the admit cards. 3. Relying upon an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12016/2021, vide order dated 07.09.2021], it has been submitted that on facts that case was similar to the case of the appellant. In that case, it was argued that certain inadvertent omission while filling the application form has been done. Taking into consideration the nature of the errors, which had crept in and that in normal circumstance a candidate would not realize while submitting the application form when there are more than one column, relief was granted. It is submitted that in the present case also, there were number of informations required to be included in the application form. The appellant belonged to OBC category apart from non-gazetted government employee category and thus, he was entitled to the benefit of horizontal reservation made for such category. This particular declaration was inadvertently omitted. 4. Indisputably, the application form submitted by the appellant did not contain any declaration of appellant being one belonging to non-gazetted government employee category. Moreover, it is also clear that even though candidates were permitted to rectify their defects in the application within the stipulated period, but such correction/rectification was not carried out by the appellant. 4. Indisputably, the application form submitted by the appellant did not contain any declaration of appellant being one belonging to non-gazetted government employee category. Moreover, it is also clear that even though candidates were permitted to rectify their defects in the application within the stipulated period, but such correction/rectification was not carried out by the appellant. On the basis of the application submitted by the appellant and large number of candidates, scrutiny has taken place and preliminary examination has been held for the purpose of screening. It was only when the appellant was short-listed for written examination and when admit cards were issued, at that stage, the appellant started seeking correction in the application form. 5. Where the selections of the candidates and benefit of vertical and horizontal reservations are based on individual claims and candidates belonging to different categories and such declarations are required to be made in the application form in response to the advertisement, the candidates are required to give relevant details in the application form. Where mechanism for correction of errors and defects is provided in the scheme of examination, such candidates have the opportunity to rectify the defects within the time stipulated under the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Even thereafter, if a candidate fails to rectify the defects in the application, in that case, such candidates cannot seek shelter of the Court for issuance of a direction to allow them to rectify the defects because if this is allowed, it would amount to issuing a direction contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Barring exceptional cases, which have been dealt with in some of the judgments, such a relief cannot be granted. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Piyush Kaviya & Ors. v. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 198/2018, vide order dated 10.04.2018] considered this aspect and it was held as under: "31. Thus, the conflict between merit and public interest subserved by timely filling up of public posts has to be balanced. The balance is stuck in the instant case by giving a window period to the candidates to correct the on-line application forms. The balance was stuck by prohibiting any application to be submitted after last date notified. 32. The writ petitioners were negligent. The balance is stuck in the instant case by giving a window period to the candidates to correct the on-line application forms. The balance was stuck by prohibiting any application to be submitted after last date notified. 32. The writ petitioners were negligent. They never disclosed in the on-line application forms submitted that they were non-gazetted Government employees. Thus, it was too late in the day for them to seek change in the category in which they had applied after the admit cards were issued by informing the Commission that they were non-gazetted Government employees." 6. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition applying the principle laid down in the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra). 7. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly and fervently urged that the appellant may be granted one opportunity at this stage as the application for correction/rectification is made before holding the written examination not when the process has come to the fag end of the preparation of the merit list after written examination and interview. This prayer cannot be accepted. Reliance placed on the order of the learned Single Judge in the case of Chandra Prakash Sharma (supra) is misplaced on facts as well as on law both. Firstly, that was a case where certain columns with regard to experience were required to be filled up. Secondly, in that case, on its own facts, learned Single Judge exercised extraordinary jurisdiction to permit the writ petitioners to correct the defects, even though they had failed to carry out the correction within the stipulated period. That order does not constitute precedent in cases other than those which were actually dealt with by the learned Single Judge particularly relating to experience. On the other hand, decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra) holds the field and would apply as precedent to deal with the issue in hand. 8. In view of the above considerations, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge by allowing the appellant to rectify the defects in the application form beyond the period stipulated under the advertisement. 9. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.