JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to change the marital status of the appellant as ‘Widow’ instead of ‘Married Woman’ and to consider her candidature in the Widow category being one since her husband had died way back on 08.10.2009. 2. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant stays in a village and with the assistance of E-mitra, her application form was submitted online, where her status was recorded as ‘Married Woman’ instead of ‘OBC Widow’. This aspect never came to notice of the appellant as in the admit card also, no category was mentioned. Because of non-mentioning of the category, the appellant only came to know of the said fact when her result was finally declared. An application was moved immediately for correction of the category, but the same was not accepted. 3. Counsel further contends that although in the OBC Married Woman category, the appellant does not make the grade, however, in the category of Widow, she would be higher in merit than the last selected candidate. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of the Court that the cut-off marks for a Widow category candidate, who has been granted appointment, is 45.4915 marks whereas the appellant has obtained 97.55 marks. He on this basis contends that an error which had crept in while filling up the form would virtually deny her an opportunity of appointment to the category which she actually belongs. Prayer has, thus, been made for accepting the present appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in this appeal by contending that immediately after the issuance of the advertisement, it was clearly mentioned therein that, if, there is an error which has crept in the application form, which was filled up, the same would be corrected within a period of one week from the last date of filling of the application. 6. It was clearly mentioned that in case, the needful is not done, there would be no further opportunity for rectifying the mistake, if any. 6. It was clearly mentioned that in case, the needful is not done, there would be no further opportunity for rectifying the mistake, if any. Another opportunity was also given after the examination was held for correcting the error, if any, but the appellant did not avail of this opportunity also. There was no further opportunity, which would be granted to the appellant for correction of the error and, therefore, the application which has been submitted after declaration of the result could not be acted upon. 7. Reference has also been made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Piyush Kaviya and Others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others in D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 198/2018 decided on 10.04.2018 where similar issue has been considered and the appeal has been rejected. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal may be dismissed. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the pleadings and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. On consideration of the same, when the facts are not in dispute, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal in light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra), where similar prayer, as has been made in the present appeal, was denied and the appeal was rejected. The operative part thereof has been reproduced in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge which reads as follows: “29. It needs to be highlighted that seeking public employment the number of applicants swell into thousands for every appointment offered. The cumbersome process of processing the applications manually and at each stage of the selection process manual intervention being time consuming, aid of technology is being taken. Online applications are being received. Opportunities to correct mistakes in the on-line application forms are provided by opening a window period. When the window period closes, the forms, applications etc. as amended are processed. The computer generates the admit cards. The results of the examination are fed in the computer for various categories of posts and in the instant case, the number being 30, select list based on merits and categories are generated by the computer. When the window period closes, the forms, applications etc. as amended are processed. The computer generates the admit cards. The results of the examination are fed in the computer for various categories of posts and in the instant case, the number being 30, select list based on merits and categories are generated by the computer. The candidates need to be vigilant and specially when, as in the instant advertisement, they were cautioned time and again to check their particulars and a window period within which corrections could be made was made available to the candidates. 30. Whilst it may be true that every endeavour should be made to induct meritorious candidates but at the same time administrative inconvenience caused by permitting applicants to correct errors committed by them has to be kept in mind. It serves public interest that appointments to civil posts are made as early as possible. 31. Thus, the conflict between merit and public interest sub-served 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. 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.” 10. In light of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed.