ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the decision taken by respondent No.2/CGPSC on 22.3.2010 whereby the petitioner’s application dated 30.11.2009 for correction in the admit card in the category as per provision No.1 of the admit card, has been rejected and she has been treated as a candidate of unreserved category instead of scheduled caste category. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.5.2009 issued by respondent No.2/CGPSC for filling up posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject – Sociology. However, in the admit card issued to her which was received by her by post only on the previous day of examination i.e. 28.11.2009, she was mentioned as a candidate of Unreserved Category. After receipt of the admit card, as per provision No.1 of the admit card, she submitted an application on 30.11.2009 to CGPSC for correcting her category as Scheduled Caste but the same was not considered. Thereafter, she submitted a reminder on 10.12.2010 to CGPSC for correction in her category. However, without considering the application of the petitioner, CGPSC declared the result of written examination for the elective subject Sociology which was conducted on 29/30.11.2009 depriving the petitioner of the benefits of reserved quota. Though she had acquired more than the required cut off marks and was fully qualified for the post of Assistant Professor, but due to treating her as a candidate of Unreserved Category, she was not called for interview and thus deprived of getting appointment on the said post. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, according to the provision given in the admit card page No.(2) No.1, the application of the petitioner dated 30.11.2011 be taken into consideration for correction of her category from UR to SC category. 10.2 That, the C.G.P.S.C. result of exam dated 29/30.11.2009 be declared including the petitioner in SC category to save the future of the petitioner from getting ruined. 10.3 That, the petitioner be included in SC category and be granted the benefit of belonging to reserved category (SC) and be granted the opportunity to appear for interview. 10.2 That, the C.G.P.S.C. result of exam dated 29/30.11.2009 be declared including the petitioner in SC category to save the future of the petitioner from getting ruined. 10.3 That, the petitioner be included in SC category and be granted the benefit of belonging to reserved category (SC) and be granted the opportunity to appear for interview. 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without giving any consideration to the application of the petitioner for correction in the category, CGPSC kept her in Unreserved Category whereas she belongs to SC category which is evident from her caste certificate (Annexure P/4). The petitioner made applications twice to CGPSC for correction in her category as per provision No.1 of the admit card, but without paying any heed to it, CGPSC declared the result of the main examination treating her as a candidate of UR category and deprived her of appearing in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Sociology). Reliance has been placed on the order dated 1.11.2017 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017 in the matter of Kavita Choudhary Vs. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court and another and judgment dated 10.12.2019 of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.13038/2019 in the matter of Deepika Vs. Union Public Service Commission. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents strongly oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submit that as per the petitioner she appeared in the examination for the subject – Sociology which was held on 29th and 30th November, 2009. She had received admit card by post a day before the date of examination. According to her, there was a mistake in the admit card as instead of keeping her in the scheduled caste category, she was kept in unreserved category. It is submitted that as per the advertisement dated 20.5.2009 applications were invited from the eligible candidates for filling up various posts of Assistant Professor. It was made clear in the said advertisement vide Clause 23.5 that after submission of original application form, no amendment/correction shall be entertained in the said original application form. It is submitted that as per the advertisement dated 20.5.2009 applications were invited from the eligible candidates for filling up various posts of Assistant Professor. It was made clear in the said advertisement vide Clause 23.5 that after submission of original application form, no amendment/correction shall be entertained in the said original application form. It was also made clear by the said clause that if erroneous information has been supplied by the applicant in the application form, then the applicant shall be responsible for the same. The petitioner had submitted her application form wherein her candidature was described out of reserved category of scheduled caste and the relevant portion of that form was left blank. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was treated as a candidate claiming participation in the selection process as a member of unreserved category. Clause 23.5 of the advertisement specifically mandates that no amendment/correction shall be permissible in the original application form and hence the petitioner herself is responsible for the said lapse of not claiming her candidature for the advertised post out of reserved category of scheduled caste. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination, therefore, at the later stage the respondents cannot consider the petitioner’s candidature against the reserved category of scheduled caste after completion of the entire selection process. Therefore, the present petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position in this case that pursuant to the advertisement of Annexure P/1, the petitioner submitted her application for the post of Assistant Professor (Sociology) and thereafter, she was issued admit card (Annexure P/2) wherein her category was mentioned as Unreserved. As per Annexure P/2, the date of examination was 29th and 30th November, 2009. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner submitted an application dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure P/3) to Public Service Commission for correction in her category. Vide Annexure P/5 result of the written examination was declared by the respondents. The petitioner also submitted an application dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure P/6) for correction in her category and revaluation. 7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner submitted an application dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure P/3) to Public Service Commission for correction in her category. Vide Annexure P/5 result of the written examination was declared by the respondents. The petitioner also submitted an application dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure P/6) for correction in her category and revaluation. 7. Condition No.23 of the advertisement dated 20.5.2009 (Annexure P/1) being relevant is reproduced hereunder: ¼23½ viw.kZ vFkok =qfViw.kZ tkudkjh %& 23-1 ÁR;sd vkosnd dks pkfg;s fd os foKkiu esa fn, x, funsZ’kksa rFkk vkosnu&i= esa fn;s lHkh [kkuksa dks Hkyh Ádkj ns[kdj vR;Ur lko/kkuhiwoZd lgh vkSj iwjh tkudkjh HkjsaA 23-2 ;fn vkosnd ds }kjk vk;ksx dks Hkzfer djus ds mn~ns’; ls dksbZ viw.kZ vFkok =qfViw.kZ tkudkjh nh tkrh gS] rks mls vR;Ur xaHkhjrk ls ysrs gq,] vk;ksx dBksj dk;Zokgh fd, tkus gsrq Lora= gksxkA 23-3 =qfViw.kZ ;k viw.kZ vkosnu dks] vkosnd dks fcuk iwoZ lwpuk fn, p;u ds fdlh Hkh Lrj ij fujLr dj fn;k tk,xkA 23-4 vk;ksx }kjk vkosnd dh mEehnokjh dks lekIr djus dk fu.kZ; ysus ij fdlh Ádkj dh fyf[kr lwpuk fn;k tkuk vko’;d ugha gksxkA 23-5 ewy vkosnu i= dh ÁkfIr ds Ik’pkr~ mldh Áfof”V;ksa esa fdlh Hkh Ádkj ds la’kks/ku gsrq vkosnd }kjk Ásf”kr fdlh Hkh Ádkj dk vH;kosnu ekU; ugha fd;k tk,xk ,oa vkosnd dk ewy vkosnu gh fopkj ;ksX; gksxkA bl Ádkj ;fn ewy vkosnu i= esa vkosnd =qfViw.kZ tkudkjh nh tkrh gS rks blds fy;s vkosnd Lo;a ftEesnkj gksxkA In the said advertisement, under the heading “Importation Information”, it has been mentioned in para-4 as under: ^^4- vkosnu ‘kqYd ,oa vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ vkosnu i=ksa dh miyC/krk & NRrhlxढ+ ds ,sls ewy fuoklh vkosnd tks NRrhlxढ+ ds varxZr vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr vFkok vU; fiNM+k oxZ ¼xSj Øhehys;j½ dh Js.kh esa vkrs gS] ds fy, vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ vkosnu&i= dk ewY; #i;s 250@& ¼#i;s nks lkS ipkl½ gksxkA ‘ks”k lHkh Js.kh ds ,ao NRrhlxढ+ ds ckgj ds fuoklh vkosndksa ds fy, vksŒ,eŒvkjŒ vkosnu&i= dk ewY; #i;s 350@&¼#i;s rhu lkS ipkl½ gksxkA** 8. The petitioner has not filed any fee certificate which could show as to how much fee she deposited with the application. Thus, from the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the petitioner herself was responsible for this mistake in mentioning her category and as per the specific terms and conditions of the advertisement, no amendment/correction can be permitted after submission of the application form. Thus, from the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the petitioner herself was responsible for this mistake in mentioning her category and as per the specific terms and conditions of the advertisement, no amendment/correction can be permitted after submission of the application form. The petitioner did not file any documentary proof to show that the mistake committed by her was a bona-fide one. She was filling in the application form of a responsible post of Assistant Professor of Higher Education Department and as such, she was expected to go through the terms and conditions of the advertisement minutely and be careful while submitting her candidature for the said post. She also did not file any document to show as to what steps she took after receipt of the admit card. Annexure P/3 is her application for correction in the category which was submitted on 30.11.2009 whereas as per the admit card, the examination was scheduled to be held on 29th & 30th November, 2009 itself. Thus, she submitted the said application on the date of examination only. Further, Annexure P/6 is another application of the petitioner in this regard which was submitted more than after one year of the examination on 10.12.2010. As regards the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the same being distinguishable on facts are of no help to the petitioner. 9. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.