JUDGMENT : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - In instant writ petition, candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) as A.B.P.M has been rejected by the Superintendent of Post Office, Nagaur on 22.11.2022, at the time of documents verification, due to not tallying the name of Board of Secondary Education with the name of the Board filled by petitioner in his online application form. In the application form, petitioner had filled the name of Board of Secondary Education in State of Rajasthan as "National Institute of Open Schooling", whereas petitioner produced certificate of Secondary Examination-2019 at the time of documents verification from the Bihar Board of Open Schooling & Examination, Patna. The petitioner has prayed for allowing to rectify the error and consequently to set aside the letter dated 22.11.2022, rejecting his candidature and prayed to consider his candidature on merits. 2. The relevant facts in brief as reveal from the record are that the Government of India in the Department of Post, in order to engagement of 38,296 posts of GDS as BPM/ABPM/Dak Sevak initiated the process of recruitment through India Post GDS Online Engagement-Cycle IV vide notification (Ann.1). Online applications form were invited for which start date was 02.05.2022 and end date was 05.06.2022. The requisite educational qualification is Secondary School Examination pass certificate of 10th standard having passed in Mathematics, local language and English conducted by any recognized Board of School Education by the Government of India/State Governments/Union Territories in India. The selection criteria and communications of selection was indicated in the advertisement that selection will be made as per system generated merit list based on merit position of candidates and the preference of posts submitted. Provisionally selected candidate, while attending documents verification, has to come along with original documents. It was clearly indicated in Sub Clause (xiii) of Clause 21, that in case a candidate uploads wrong documents/information and unnecessary documents, candidature will be rejected. Petitioner submitted his online application form for Rajasthan Circle, Division Nagaur, but in respect of details about the name of State, Board and year of passing 10th Class, petitioner indicated the name of State as "Rajasthan" and name of Board as "National Institute of Open Schooling", whereas as a matter of fact, petitioner has passed secondary examination of 2019 from the State of Bihar, from Bihar Board of Open Schooling & Examination, Patna (Ann.2). According to marks obtained by petitioner in 10th Class, his name was shortlisted for verification of documents and scheduled date for documents verification of petitioner was fixed for 22.11.2022 before the Superintendent of Post Office, Nagaur. Petitioner states that at this stage, he came to know about the error committed by him, in mentioning the wrong name of Board of Secondary Examination, at the time of filling online application form, therefore, he got prepared an affidavit on 21.11.2022 stating on oath that the indication of the wrong name of Board is an accidental and inadvertent error on his part, which may be allowed to rectify. Petitioner appeared for documents verification on the scheduled date 22.11.2022 along with affidavit and original marks-sheet of Secondary Examination-2019, but since the name of Board configured in the software, not tallied with the name of Board of his mark-sheet of Secondary Education, therefore, due to such reason, the candidature of petitioner has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner has uploaded photocopy of his mark-sheet of secondary examination-2019 from Bihar Board of Open Schooling & Examination, Patna with the submission of online application form and mistake in mentioning the name of Board in online application form is merely accidental and inadvertent for which petitioner sworn his affidavit. Petitioner has correctly indicated the marks obtained by him and according to the marks of petitioner, he falls in merit for recruitment on the post of ABPM. He submits that on account of such minor human/clerical mistake, his candidature has wrongly been rejected and action of the respondents in not allowing to rectify such human mistake, is arbitrary, illegal and against the principle of law of natural justice, due to which petitioner cannot be deprived from appointment in spite of falling in merit. Therefore, the action of respondents, declining to consider the candidature of petitioner on merits for appointment be treated violative to the legal and constitutional rights of petitioner and candidature of petitioner be considered on merits for appointment. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has contended that the candidature of petitioner has been rejected following the instructions as indicated in advertisement and also issued by the Government of India on 12.09.2022 (Ann.R/2). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has contended that the candidature of petitioner has been rejected following the instructions as indicated in advertisement and also issued by the Government of India on 12.09.2022 (Ann.R/2). In Clause-10 of the Instructions issued by the Government of India vide letter dated 12.09.2022, while replying an F.A.Q, in respect of question "While verifying the documents, name of Boards configured in the software and that is on the mark-sheet submitted by the candidate are different, however marks filled in the application form tailed with marks submitted, whether candidature of such candidate to be accepted or rejected?", the reply is very clear that "due to not tallying of the name of board, the candidature is to be rejected, provided the Board Name is correctly configured in the Portal". Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on a judgment dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Delhi High Court in case of Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 1144/2022. Learned counsel for petitioner has also raised objection of territorial jurisdiction in respect of Jaipur Bench of High Court on a plea that candidature of petitioner was rejected by the Superintendent of Post Office, Nagaur, therefore, petition should have been instituted before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. It is not in dispute that process for engagement of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) as BPM/ABPM/Dak Sevak was initiated vide notification (Ann.1) through India Post GDS Online Engagement Cycle IV and it has been informed by the petitioner that as many as 38,296 vacancies were advertised. The eligibility for the post in question is that the candidate must pass secondary examination from the recognized Board and merit list was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in secondary examination. 7. It is not in dispute that in the advertisement itself there are clear instructions that the details furnished by candidates while submitting online application form cannot be modified or altered and such requests will not be entertained at any level. 7. It is not in dispute that in the advertisement itself there are clear instructions that the details furnished by candidates while submitting online application form cannot be modified or altered and such requests will not be entertained at any level. Further in respect of the controversy arose regarding variance between the name of Board as indicated in the application form, other than the certificate of Secondary Board of the candidate, F.A.Q was made i.e. "While verifying the documents, name of Boards configured in the software and that is on the mark-sheet submitted by the candidate are different, however marks filled in the application form tailed with marks submitted, whether candidature of such candidate to be accepted or rejected". There is clear instructions by the Government of India that due to not tallying the name of Board, the candidature is to be rejected. The clarifications/instructions issued by the Government of India vide letter dated 12.09.2022 (Ann.R/2) is available on record and such instructions are not in question. 8. Thus it is a case of clear mistake and negligence on the part of petitioner. According to the terms and conditions of advertisement and under the Rules of recruitment, there is no provision to allow the rectification of mistake. It may be noticed that the process of recruitment has been initiated online, and if the offline corrections to rectify the error/mistakes of candidates are allowed, at the stage of documents verification, the same certainly would jeopardized the entire selection process and may become an unending process. More so, in the present case, there is instructions that if the verification of documents remains unsuccessful, the next candidate in merit will get system generated email/SMS, it may not be assumed that after rejection of candidature of petitioner on 22.11.2022, no third party rights have been created against the post of petitioner. 9. In case of Piyush Kaviya v. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.198/2018, decided on 10.04.2018, the Division Bench has observed as under:- "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. On-line applications are being received. 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. On-line 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 admits 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 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." 10. In case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yogita Yaduvanshi, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.804/2020, vide order dated 19.03.2021, the Division Bench while allowing the Special Appeal and setting aside the order of learned Single Judge, allowing to make corrections in the application form, held as under:- "Admittedly, an Advertisement was issued on 2.4.2018 by the appellant for filling up various posts. Respondents had also filled in her application form. The last date for filling up application form was upto 11.5.2018. As per the Advertisement, online corrections could be made in the application form from 12.5.2018 to 18.5.2018. It has also been mentioned by way of special note in the Advertisement that off-line corrections would not be allowed in the application form. It was also clarified that no corrections would be allowed after 18.5.2018. Admittedly, the respondent had not sought online correction within the stipulated period i.e. from 12.5.2018 to 18.5.2018. In these circumstances, in view of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the writ petition filed by the respondent was liable to be dismissed. In Sonal Tyagi v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7840/2019, decided on 12.07.2019, the Division Bench had observed as under:- '4. This Court is of the opinion that the later Division Bench Ruling in the case of Kavita Choudhary (Supra) cannot be treated as binding precedent. It clearly ignored the previous Rulings of this Court of a Coordinate Bench Strength (DB) without referring to a Larger Bench. This Court is of the opinion that the later Division Bench Ruling in the case of Kavita Choudhary (Supra) cannot be treated as binding precedent. It clearly ignored the previous Rulings of this Court of a Coordinate Bench Strength (DB) without referring to a Larger Bench. Furthermore, the view that no-one would be prejudiced if mistakes are corrected, in the respectful opinion of this court, is unacceptable." 11. In case of Pradeep Kumar (Supra), the Delhi High Court has held as under: "11. Inspite of such clear warning, the petitioner was clearly negligent in uploading his self photograph instead of his Photo identity proof with the application. The petitioner cannot claim any special equity only because such mistake went unnoticed at the earlier stage of the recruitment process and was noticed only at document verification stage [Refer: T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu & Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 403 ]. 12. This Court, in its judgment dated 25.01.2010 in Union Public Service Commission v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) 10058/2009, held that no deviation from the terms and conditions of an advertisement and rules for the recruitment for a public office shall be permitted, as such deviation would result in gross injustice to the other candidates. In the present case, as is evident from Paragraph 5(B)(b) of the CGNET 01/2022, any mismatch in the documents uploaded during the online application stage and original documents produced would lead to cancellation of candidature. We have been informed that candidature of 382 candidates was cancelled by the respondents at the stage of document verification. No exception can therefore, be made only for the petitioner. Granting relief to the petitioner may put the entire selection process in jeopardy and will make it an unending process." 12. In case of Parvinder v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No.1864/2022 decided vide judgment dated 04.02.2022, the judgment of Pradeep Kumar (Supra) was followed and where a candidate inadvertently uploaded a soft copy of his Class 10th mark-sheet in place of scanned copy of his Aadhar Card, it was held that the negligence of petitioner cannot be a ground to direct Authorities to deviate from the advertisement inviting applications or to reopen the selection process. 13. 13. As far as judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Poonam Pal v. Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank, W.P. No.9338/2021 dated 15.03.2022, on which learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance, it was a case where petitioner had cleared the written test and the interview, thereafter offer letter of appointment had been issued in favour of petitioner, but candidature was cancelled at that juncture merely on account of typographical error in indication of date of birth in her online application, therefore, learned Single Judge, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court delivered in case of Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No.11642/2016 decided on 23.12.2016, allowed the writ petition and issued directions to respondents to consider the candidate of petitioner for the post of Office Assistant and to issue appointment order. On facts of the present case, such judgment does not render any support to the case of petitioner and was passed in peculiar facts of that case. 14. As far as objection of respondents in respect of territorial jurisdiction of High Court at Jaipur Bench is concerned, in view of fact that respondent No.1 invited online applications from all over India and petitioner has alleged his residence at Jaipur from where he submitted his online application form. Merely the centre for documents verification to petitioner was allotted in Nagaur, in such facts, it may not be held that the High Court at Jaipur Bench has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the action of respondents, challenged herein. Hence the objection of territorial jurisdiction is overruled. 15. For the aforesaid discussions and reasons and considering the legal proposition as enunciated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is not liable to be succeed and consequently hereby dismissed. No costs. 16. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.