ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 5/10/2021 (Annex. 10) passed by the respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. Further a direction has been sought to treat the application form dated 10/10/2017 (Annex. 5) of the petitioner as having applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III Level-2 for Mathematics & Science and consider her candidature pursuant to the advertisement dated 11/9/2017 and accord her appointment, if the petitioner has obtained marks more than the cut off. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 6/7/2016 (Annex. 1) for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III Level-2. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the subjects Maths & Science. Further, an amended advertisement was issued by the respondents on 11/9/2017, wherein, the requirement indicated was that those who have already applied were not required to fill up fresh form, however, they were required to update their data with reference to their earlier application reference ID and on failure their applications shall not be considered. 3. The petitioner pursuant to the amended advertisement, filled up the application (Annex. 5). It is claimed that due to inadvertence, the application was made for Teacher Gr. III subject 'English' instead of subject 'Maths & Science'. Though the petitioner was called for document verification in the year 2018 for subject 'English', however, as the petitioner had originally applied for subject 'Maths & Science', she gave a representation dated 4/4/2018 (Annex. 6) requiring the respondents to correct the mistake, however, respondents did not do the needful and as the petitioner did not fall within the cut off for subject 'Maths & Science', she did not pursue her case. 4. However, due to subsequent development, wherein, waiting list was issued and the cut off published for subject 'Maths & Science', when the petitioner found herself eligible, she again made a representation on 26/7/2021 and when the same was not adverted to, she approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10999/2021, which came to be decided on 1/9/2021 by the coordinate bench of this Court requiring the petitioner to file a representation, which was directed to be decided appropriately. The petitioner again filed a representation which came to be rejected by order dated 5/10/2021. The petitioner again filed a representation which came to be rejected by order dated 5/10/2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the representation of the petitioner inasmuch as once the original form of the petitioner indicated the subjects 'Maths & Science', in the subsequent form while filling up the particulars under earlier application reference ID, inadvertently her subject was changed to 'English', the respondents were required to change the subject of the petitioner and as the petitioner falls within the cut off marks, she is entitled to be accorded appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that prayer of the petitioner is highly belated inasmuch as in 2018 itself the petitioner became aware of the purported mistake, however, she did not approach the respondents and the document filed with the representation dated 4/4/2018 is a concocted document. 7. Submissions were made that when the petitioner did not appear for document verification in the year 2018, then & there her candidature was cancelled and as such to seek resurrection of candidature and getting the same changed from subject 'English' to subject 'Maths & Science' cannot be countenanced. 8. It was submitted that on account of delay and the fact that petitioner had applied for subject 'English' only and her candidature already stands rejected, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. 9. Reliance has been placed on Kavita v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1923/2021 decided on 9/12/2021, Smt. Bhawana Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.667/2019 decided on 20/11/2021 and Jaishree Purohit v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10059/2021 decided on 26/8/2021. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. The respondents by their impugned order dated 5/10/2021 (annex. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10059/2021 decided on 26/8/2021. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. The respondents by their impugned order dated 5/10/2021 (annex. 10) reached to the following conclusion : ^^1- jktLFkku izkFkfed vkSj mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ&2016 ¼la'kksf/kr½ vUrxZr xSj vuqlwfpr {ks= esa r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid ysoy&f}rh; ds fofHkUu inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq foKkiu la[;k 01@2017 fnukad 11-09-2017 tkjh dj fnukad 26-09-2017 ls 01-01-2018 rd vkWuykbZu vkosnu Hkjok;s x;sA 2- mDr f'k{kd HkrhZ&2016 ¼la'kksf/kr½ gsrq tkjh foKfIr fnukad 11-09-2017 ds fcUnq 7 ds ckn fo'ks"k uksV ds fcUnq (iv) esa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k fd vkWuykbZu vkosnu ds i'pkr ml vkosnu ds Øe esa vkosfnr in ,oa vkosfnr Js.kh esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ ifjorZu vuqKs; ugha gksxkA 3- foHkkx }kjk HkrhZ iksVZy ds ek/;e ls vkWu&ykbZu vkosnu Hkjok;s x;s o izR;sd fo"k; gsrq vyx&vyx vkosnu Hkjus dk izko/kku fd;k x;kA vH;FkhZ Lo;a dh SSO ykWfxu vkbZ Mh ls vkWu&ykbZu vkosnu Hkjus gsrq Lora= jgs gSA 4- mDr f'k{kd HkrhZ&2016 ¼la'kksf/kr½ vUrxZr ;kfpdkFkhZ lq'khyk }kjk xSj&vuqlwfpr {ks= gsrq v/;kid ysoy&f}rh; vaxzsth ¼lkekU; f'k{kk½ gsrq vkWu&ykbZu vkosnu la- 201700950897 Hkjk x;kA ;kfpdkFkhZ }kjk mDr vkWu&ykbZu esa Hkjh xbZ lwpukvksa ,oa izkIrkadksa ds vk/kkj ij budk v/;kid ysoy&f}rh; vaxszth ds in ij esfjV Øekad 162 ij vkns'k fnuakd 25-01-2018 esa p;u dj ftyk tks/kiqj vkoafVr fd;k x;kA ftyk ifj"kn~ tks/kiqj }kjk djok;s x;s nLrkost tkap esa ;kfpdkFkhZ vuqifLFkr jgh o foHkkx }kjk budk p;u fujLr dj fn;k x;kA 5- f'k{kd HkrhZ&2016 ¼la'kksf/kr½ vUrxZr tkjh foKfIr fnukad 11-09-2017 ds Øe esa ;kfpdkFkhZ }kjk xSj&vuqlwfpr {ks= esa v/;kid ysoy&f}rh; foKku vkSj xf.kr ds in gsrq vkWu&ykbZu vkosnu ugha Hkjk x;kA foKfIr fnukad 11-09-2017 ds izko/kkukuqlkj vkosfnr vU; in esa la'kks/ku@ifjorZu ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;kfpdkFkhZ mDr foKfIr ds rgr vkWu&ykbZu vkosnu dh vafre fu/kkZfjr frfFk 01-01-2018 rd vkWu&ykbZu vkosnu Hkjus gsrq Lora= FkhA foHkkx }kjk fnukad 26-09-2017 ls 01-01-2018 rd vkWu&ykbZu vkosnu Hkjok;s x;sA ;kfpdkFkhZ }kjk mDr vof/k esa v/;kid ysoy&f}rh; foKku vkSj xf.kr gsrq vkWu&ykbZu vkosnu ugha Hkjk x;k ftlds fy, vH;FkhZ Lo;a ftEesnkj gSA 6- foHkkxh; foKfIr fnukad 11-09-2017 ,ao fu;eksa ds vuqlkj vkosfnr ij esa la'kksf/kr fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA ;kfpdkFkhZ }kjk v/;kid ysoy&f}rh; vaxzsth ds Hkjs x;s vkosnu dks foKku vkSj xf.kr esa la'kksf/kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA** 12. The representation made by the petitioner has been dealt with thoroughly and exhaustively by the respondents and cogent reasons have been recorded for not accepting the representation of the petitioner, wherein, it was found that the candidature of the petitioner already stood rejected in the year 2018 itself and that the petitioner did not fill her online application form for subject 'Maths & Science', for which she herself is responsible. 13. Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to place the onus on the respondents to change the subject of the petitioner cannot be countenanced as admittedly the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of amended advertisement of filing the documents for appropriate subject and indicated her subject as English' and when she was called for interview based on the said form, she did not participate in the document verification, resulting in cancellation of her candidature. 14. The plea raised that the petitioner had filed the representation in the year 2018 itself appears to be baseless as in case the petitioner had filed such a representation, she would have followed the same at the relevant time. Waiting for over three years and then approaching the Court in the earlier round only seeking disposal of the pending representation made after about 3 1/2 years in September, 2021, essentially was for the purpose of reviving a stale cause of action. 15. Filing of petition after 3 1/2 years of rejection of the candidature and that also for the purpose of seeking change in the subject as indicated in the application form at such a belated stage cannot be countenanced. 16. Consequently, the writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.