JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police as he obtained 277.79212752 marks, whereas the last selected candidate has obtained only 240.0762118950 marks in the category of Scheduled Caste. Further, prayer has been made for quashing the decision as contained in important Notice dated 27.06.2018 (Annexure-14) issued by the respondent No.4 in respect of Jharkhand Combined Police Sub-Inspector Competitive Examination, 2017, whereby and whereunder the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police only on the ground that the name of the University mentioned in the application form was different from the educational certificates of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. An advertisement being Advertisement No.05/2017 was floated by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, inviting application form for filing up the vacancy of Sub-Inspector of Police in different Districts of State of Jharkhand. Pursuant to the same, petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste Category and being eligible, applied for the same. The petitioner did his B.Sc. from Veer Bahadur Singh Purwanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P), but inadvertently and due to overload on server of the website, in column of Educational Qualification (Graduation) in place of Veer Bahadur Singh Purwanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P), name of Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, IPU Delhi was mentioned. Thereafter, admit card was issued and petitioner appeared in the recruitment process and declared successful in P.T. Examination, Main Examination and Physical Test and Medical Test. Subsequently, he was called for verification of certificates as mentioned in the application form, wherein certain defects were pointed out and as such, petitioner was directed to produce relevant certificate on or before 31.05.2018. On 31.05.2018, the petitioner produced all the documents including the certificate of graduation and the local resident certificate. Accordingly, on 27.06.2018, the results were published, wherein the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that name of the University mentioned in the application form was found different than the original certificate produced by the petitioner vide important Notice dated 27.06.2018 though the petitioner obtained more marks than the last selected candidate under his category. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to S.C category and due to inadvertence, in the application form for the Jharkhand Police Sub Inspector Competitive Examination 2017 being Advertisement No.05/2017, he has wrongly filled the University name as ‘Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, IPU Delhi in place of Veer Bahadur Singh Purwanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P) as the petitioner filled up his online application form on the last date i.e. on 18.08.2017 and there was overload on server of the website of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and as such, this error was committed. The said error was a bona fide error, which would be evident from the fact that the certificate of graduation issued by Veer Bahadur Singh Purwanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P), submitted by the petitioner at the time of document verification. He further submits that petitioner had obtained more marks than cut off marks of S.C. Category and 97 seats are still vacant, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner gets the appointment to the said post. Considering the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents could have easily corrected and ignored the error committed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC submits that admittedly the petitioner filled up the application form, wherein he has himself mentioned Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, IPU Delhi in column of Educational Qualification/name of Institution, but at the time of documents verification, he failed to produce the same and in place of same, he submitted a graduation certificate issued by Veer Bahadur Singh Purwanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P), which is not permissible in the eyes of law and as such, rightly the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. He submits that there is no illegality in the aforesaid process. He further submits that as per Clause-9 of the advertisement, it is crystal clear that the candidates should be careful in submitting the application form and after submission of the application form any type of claim for correction shall not be allowed and candidates shall be responsible for the same. 5. He further submits that as per Clause-9 of the advertisement, it is crystal clear that the candidates should be careful in submitting the application form and after submission of the application form any type of claim for correction shall not be allowed and candidates shall be responsible for the same. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the records, it appears that admittedly the petitioner filled up the application form to appear in the Jharkhand Police Sub Inspector Competitive Examination, 2017. The petitioner appeared in the recruitment process and obtained more marks than the last selected candidate in his category, but his candidature was rejected on the ground that he has wrongly filled the University name in online application form as ‘Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, IPU Delhi in place of Veer Bahadur Singh Purwanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P). The online form was filled up by the petitioner himself. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. A candidate for any examination for that is required to fill the online application form with his eyes wide open and before submitting the online application, he also has an opportunity to recheck and make necessary corrections on the computer then and there. It is quite obvious that the petitioner was thoroughly negligent in filling his online application form and did not even care to make necessary corrections or verifications of the facts furnished and figures filled by him in his online application form. Merely because he was allowed to appear in the examination does not create an estoppel in his favour to claim that he should be offered appointment letter. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in case of Jigyasha Gupta Vs. The State of Jharkhand [W.P.(S) No.3500/2018] and this Court has dismissed the same with an observation that:- 7.……….The form filled up by the petitioner is under category of BC-II thus, the petitioner has applied under the BC-II category. The petitioner appeared in the examination as a candidate of BC-II category. The contention of the petitioner to treat her candidature under BC-I category cannot be considered at this stage when the examination has already been taken place and the appointment has been made. On being unsuccessful in the examination, the writ petitioner has approached this Court. 6. The petitioner appeared in the examination as a candidate of BC-II category. The contention of the petitioner to treat her candidature under BC-I category cannot be considered at this stage when the examination has already been taken place and the appointment has been made. On being unsuccessful in the examination, the writ petitioner has approached this Court. 6. The same was affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.119/2021. 7. Further, it is not open to a candidate to claim before the Court that he realized his mistake only when he failed to qualify in the selection process because he had given wrong particulars in his online application form. No fault can, therefore, be found in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. Interference of the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly not warranted in such matters as it creates grave uncertainty. Further, Police Force is a disciplined form and any indiscipline cannot be tolerated in the Police Force. Even the candidates who are the applicant for the said post have to be very cautious while filling-up the application forms. Negligence in filling-up the form itself shows the callous approach of the petitioner and as such, rightly his case has been turned down and rejected. Such type of candidate cannot be appointed in the Police Force 8. For the sake clarity it would be apposite to peruse Clause-9 of the Advertisement, which reads as under: 9. Negligence in filling-up the form itself shows the callous approach of the petitioner and as such, rightly his case has been turned down and rejected. Such type of candidate cannot be appointed in the Police Force 8. For the sake clarity it would be apposite to peruse Clause-9 of the Advertisement, which reads as under: 9. ONLINE vkosnu i= dks Hkjuk ,oa Submit djuk %& vkWu&ykbu vkosnu dks Hkjus ds fn, x;s fn'kk funsZ'k dk v{kj'k% ikyu djsaA vkosnu i= esa nh xbZ lwpukvksa ls iw.kZ lUrq"V gkus ds i'pkr gh vkosnu i= dks tek (Submit) djsaA vkosnu i= Hkjus ds fy, vk;ksx ds osolkbZV www.jssc.in vFkok www.jssc.nic.in ij tk,¡ ,oa Online Application for JCPSICE-2017 ij Click djsa rFkk vkosnu i= HkjsaA 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ,oa vkj{k.k dk nok ds lEcU/k esa vH;FkhZ ;g lqfuf'pr gks ys fd vkosnu dh frfFk rd os vko';d vgrkZ iw.kZ djrs gSa ,oa ,rr lEcU/kh okafNr izek.k&i= muds ikl miyC/k gSA vkosndksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosnu Submit djus ds iwoZ Hkjs x, vkosnu dks Bhd ls ns[k ysaA ;fn dksbZ =qfV gS rks mls lq/kj dj gh vkosnu Submit djsaA ,d ckj vkosnu Submit djus ds i'pkr ijh{kkQy dks izHkkfor djus okys fdlh Hkh izfof"V esa lq/kj dk dksbZ Hkh nok ekU; ugha gksxk vkSj Hkjs x;s vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij gh vkosnd dh ijh{kk yh tk;sxhA vr% vkosndksa dks lykg nh tkrh gS dh Online vkosnu QkeZ Hkjus ds iwoZ esa vk;ksx ds vf/kd`r osclbV ls ijh{kk dh foojf.kdk Download djus ds i'pkr gh QkeZ Hkjsa ckg~; lzksr ls miyC/k foojf.kdk ds vk/kkj ij QkeZ Hkjus esa ;fn dksbZ =qfV gksrh gS rks vkosnd Lo;a blds fy, ftEesokj gksxsaA From perusal of Clause-9 of the Advertisement it is clear that after submission of application form any type of correction shall not be allowed and the candidate shall be responsible for the same. It is crystal clear and settled principle of law that terms and conditions of the Advertisement cannot be relaxed to the suitability of the candidates. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 , wherein it has been held that ‘no appointment can be made dehors the Rules. The terms and conditions of the advertisement cannot be changed or altered’. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 , wherein it has been held that ‘no appointment can be made dehors the Rules. The terms and conditions of the advertisement cannot be changed or altered’. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in case of Yogesh Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand [W.P.S. No. 3604 of 2019] disposed of on 11.06.2020. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 10. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.