JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent- Corporation to accord him appointment on the post of Assistant as per his merit. Further relief has been sought seeking correction of his E-mail ID in the application form. 2. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.9.2019 (Annex. 1). The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination Phase-I and was shortlisted vide Annex. 3 as an empanelled candidate in the category of OBC. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for document verification on 22.9.2021, but he was not selected because he had not produced the print out of his application form. 3. The petitioner sent an E-mail to the respondents inter-alia indicating that by mistake, he wrote a wrong E-mail ID, he was unable to download the application form and get its print out and produce the same before the Corporation. 4. The petitioner was sent communication dated 23.10.2021 by the Corporation inter-alia indicating that it was specifically mentioned in the notification that candidate should have a personal E-mail ID and Mobile Number, which should be active till the completion of the recruitment process and all the candidates were supposed to attend the document verification with all the requisites on 4.10.2021 at Divisional office followed by medical examination and biometric verification and as the recruitment process is already over, the request of the petitioner cannot be attended in this regard and that petitioner despite communicating through an E-mail, which is not registered with the Corporation, only by way of goodwill gesture, the same was being responded. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that due to human error on part of the petitioner while filing the online application, the petitioner indicated a wrong E-mail ID and was unable to retrieve the application form, which was filed by him online. 7. Submissions have been made that merely because the petitioner could not produce a copy of the application form filed by him, he could not be debarred from further process in the recruitment and as such the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be sustained and the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 8. 7. Submissions have been made that merely because the petitioner could not produce a copy of the application form filed by him, he could not be debarred from further process in the recruitment and as such the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be sustained and the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 8. A response to the petition has been filed inter-alia relying on Clause (iii) of Point No. 15 under “Important Instructions” of the advertisement requiring the candidates to produce the duly signed system generated print out of online application, failing which their candidature shall be liable to be cancelled. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently made submissions that as the petitioner has failed to comply with the requirements of the notification (Annex. 1), he is not entitled to any relief. 10. Submissions have been made that admittedly at the time of document verification the petitioner has failed to produce the requisite and as per the instructions, his candidature was liable to rejected and as such the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 11. By order dated 6.1.2022, this Court inter-alia observed as under: “In the present writ petition the petitioner has questioned the validity of the action of the respondent-LIC in not providing him opportunity based on his selection. In response to the petition, it has been indicated that as the petitioner had indicated his email ID incorrectly and did not produce the copy of the application, as filed by him, he was not permitted to appear for document verification and that he is not entitled to any relief. Learned counsel for the respondent-LIC is directed to make submissions as to whether wrong mentioning of the e-mail ID by the petitioner was in any way mischievous and/or, whether the production of copy of the application filed by the petitioner can be termed as so sacrosanct, which material is already available with the LIC, so as to deprive the meritorious candidate from appointment.” 12. An additional affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Corporation reiterating the fact that the petitioner has indeed failed to comply with the requirements of the advertisement, wherein, repeated instructions have been given regarding maintaining the E-mail ID and as the entire process is online, the respondents are justified in rejecting the petitioner's candidature. 13. An additional affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Corporation reiterating the fact that the petitioner has indeed failed to comply with the requirements of the advertisement, wherein, repeated instructions have been given regarding maintaining the E-mail ID and as the entire process is online, the respondents are justified in rejecting the petitioner's candidature. 13. Further submissions have been made that the name of the petitioner was in the empanelled list and he did not fall in merit in the original list, however, he claimed as if he stood at 3rd in overall merit, which is mala-fide and on that count also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. A perusal of the application form reflects that the entire recruitment process was required to be undertaken online and as submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, the relevant Clause, clearly provides that in case of failure to provide the system generated print out of the online application, the candidature shall be rejected. The Clause reads as under: “(iii) Candidates who are called for final selection as per merit after Main Examination will have to submit the duly signed System Generated Print out of the Online application, Receipt of fee as mentioned above and also produce original and self attested Photostat copies of all relevant certificates at the time of document verification after final selection, failing which their candidature shall be liable to be cancelled.” 16. Further, the advertisement in various clauses has emphasized and reemphasized the provisions pertaining to maintaining of the E-mail ID etc. for the purpose of a smooth online recruitment. 17. Admittedly, the petitioner by indicating a wrong E-mail ID, resulting in the fact that the application form, which was filed by him online, print out thereof was not available with him. 18. The issue which arises for consideration is whether on the admitted facts about the provisions of the advertisement as well as the mistake committed by the petitioner, the Clause-iii of Point No. 15 of instructions, the consequences as provided should be applied in the circumstances of the case? 19. 18. The issue which arises for consideration is whether on the admitted facts about the provisions of the advertisement as well as the mistake committed by the petitioner, the Clause-iii of Point No. 15 of instructions, the consequences as provided should be applied in the circumstances of the case? 19. As ordered by this Court on 6.1.2022, the respondents were called upon to make submissions as to whether wrong mentioning of the E-mail ID by the petitioner, was in any way mischievous and/or whether the non-production of copy of the system generated online application form, filed by the petitioner, can be termed as so sacrosanct, which material is already available with the Corporation, so as to deprive a meritorious candidate from appointment? 20. The additional affidavit filed by the respondents, as noticed hereinbefore, only emphasize the fact that the recruitment being online and the condition having been indicated in the advertisement, the same was to be complied with by the petitioner. 21. The query made by the Court and the submission sought, have not been responded regarding the action of the petitioner in any way being mischievous and that the production of copy of application being sacrosanct. 22. In the opinion of this Court if based on mentioning of a wrong E-mail ID the communication sent by Corporation had not been received by the petitioner and on that count if the petitioner had violated any of the requirements and then he had sought any relief, he apparently was not entitled for the same. However, in the present case the only requirement in which the petitioner has failed, on account of indicating wrong E-mail ID, is that he has not produced a system generated print out of the online application. 23. As to non-production of the system generated print out of the application, led to what nature of deficiency and whether the same was so grave that petitioner should be debarred from further process, the additional affidavit is silent. This Court also does not find the violation technical and not grave, inasmuch as, admittedly the Corporation is in possession of the online application filed by the petitioner, which copy thereof could always be generated/used/checked by the Corporation. 24. This Court also does not find the violation technical and not grave, inasmuch as, admittedly the Corporation is in possession of the online application filed by the petitioner, which copy thereof could always be generated/used/checked by the Corporation. 24. In view thereof, despite the vehement submissions made on part of the respondent- Corporation seeking to justify its action only on account of the violation of the condition indicated in the application form, the same cannot be sustained. 25. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to carry out the document verification process of the petitioner and take further procedure pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 17.9.2019 (Annex. 1) and in case, the petitioner is entitled to be accorded appointment based on the merit, accord him appointment, if he is otherwise eligible. 26. The petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits from the date person lower in merit to the petitioner was accorded appointment. However, he would be entitled to monetary benefits from the date he is accorded appointment, if any. 27. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Corporation for the purpose of document verification on 04.03.2021.