ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for the respondents to consider her candidature for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade in Non TSP category in the recruitment process initiated vide the advertisement No.1/2023 issued by the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Yunani, Siddha & Homeopathy (AYUSH), Government of Rajasthan. 2. The petitioner submitted her online application form in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. It is the case of the petitioner that while she was making rectification in the application form within the time window provided for the said purpose, at that time, due to inadvertance and typographical error, her category was changed to "TSP Area" from "Non-TSP Area". The petitioner came to know of this mistake when she called for document verification under the category of "TSP Area". The petitioner contacted the respondent authorities for correction in the category, however, she was not allowed to do so. Being aggrieved of the same, she has preferred the instant writ petition. 3. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this court in the case of Reena Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10878/2024 decided on 22.08.2024], the relevant part of which is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :- "3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are meritorious candidates and have attained more than the cut off marks, but due to bonafide mistake, which occurred due to website problem, they are being deprived of recruitment, whereas the persons less meritorious than them are going to be appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the selection process has yet not been completed and thus, no third party rights have been created, therefore, the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioners to make correction in their category and include them in the selection process in the category to which they belong. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has place reliance on the following judgments :- (1) Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [ AIR 2024 SC 248 ] (2) Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE & Ors. [ AIR 2004 SC 5043 ] (3) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has place reliance on the following judgments :- (1) Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [ AIR 2024 SC 248 ] (2) Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE & Ors. [ AIR 2004 SC 5043 ] (3) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Prerna Suhalka (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.279/2016 decided on 16.07.2021) (4) Prema Choudhary Vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13406/2017 decided on 30.05.2018) (5) Asif Ali Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9455/2019 decided on 04.09.2019) (6) Prince Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13136/2018 decided on 20.05.2024) (8) Suman INaniyan Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4465/2020 decided on 25.11.2020) (9) Eshara Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7965/2019 decided on 24.03.2022) 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is clearly mentioned in the advertisement that only those candidates who belong to the TSP area should apply in that category and they have to furnish the TSP certificate when demanded. He further submits that the advertisement in unequivocal terms provides that after the three days' window for rectification of errors, no further opportunity shall be provided for the same. He submits that if the candidates are allowed to make corrections in the application forms for indefinite period, then it would be very difficult to finalize the recruitment process. Learned counsel submits that the issue raised by the petitioners is no more res integra in view of the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this court in the cases of (1) Piyush Kaviya & Ors. Vs. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.198/2018 decided on 10.04.2018] (2) Pooja Rajpurohit Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.323/2021 decided on 01.12.2021] (3) Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.804/2020 decided on 19.03.2021] He also placed reliance on the Single Bench judgment of this court involving similar issue in the case of Suman Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3851/2024 decided on 04.04.2024]. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the record. 6. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3851/2024 decided on 04.04.2024]. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the record. 6. The issue raised by the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in the cases of Piyush Kaviya (supra), Yogita Yaduvanshi (supra), Pooja Rajpurohit (supra) and Suman Kumari (supra). In the case of Piyush Kaviya (supra), the Division Bench has held as under :- “25. In view of the unambiguous and clear language in the advertisement which gave one month time after the last date for submitting on-line applications for corrections to be made and clearly indicated that no application for correction in the online application forms would be accepted thereafter, there is no scope to interpret Note No.5 in the admit card as done by the learned Single Judge. That apart the language of the Note admits of no two interpretations. The language is clear. It permits the applicants to bring to the notice of the Commission any error in the admit card concerning the candidate and said error has to be a mismatch between the particulars disclosed by the candidate in the on-line application and admit card. Thus, the question of any promissory estoppel binding the Commission does not arise. 26. As regards the decisions cited by learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners, in Smt. Kirti’s case applicability of Rule 10(4)of the applicable Rules came up for consideration. The Rules of 1962 were amended in the years 1982 and 1984. As amended the Rule required change of preference to be indicated for a particular service desired to be accepted within 30 days of declaration of the result of the written examination. The writ petitioner successfully established that she had no knowledge of the amended Rules and when she applied to the Government Press for the Rules to be issued to her in the year 1992, the original Rules, sans the amendment were provided to her. In that view of the matter relief was granted to her with additional reason that in the original application form there was no stipulation that a candidate would not be allowed to change his/her preference. 27. In that view of the matter relief was granted to her with additional reason that in the original application form there was no stipulation that a candidate would not be allowed to change his/her preference. 27. As noted hereinabove, in the instant case advertisement clearly indicated to the candidates that no change in the application forms would be permissible after the mid night of 25th July, 2016 28. The decisions in Ram Kumar Gijroya’s case and Seema Kumari Sharma’s case do not apply in the instant case. In Ram Kumar’s case the issue concerned the date by which an OBC certificate had to be submitted and the decision in Seema Kumari Sharma’s case concerned assignment of marks for candidates belonging to backward areas and belonging to IRDP families. The applicants had submitted the IRDP certificate late. 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. 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 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 subserved 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. It serves public interest that appointments to civil posts are made as early as possible. 31. Thus, the conflict between merit and public interest subserved 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. 33. The appeals are allowed. Impugned orders of even date i.e. 24.11.2017 are set aside. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4440/2017filed by Sajjan Singh, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10812/2017 filed by Birda Ram Bishnoi and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4466/2017 filed by Purshpendra Singh Rajawat are dismissed.” 7. In the case of Yogita Yaduvanshi (supra), the Division Bench has held as under :- “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 vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, D.b. Civil Writ Petition No. 7840/2019, decided on 12.7.2019, 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 a 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.” Learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition basing reliance on decision of Division Bench in Kavita Choudhary’s case (supra), but in Sonal Tyagis’s case (supra), it has been observed by the Division Bench that it cannot be treated as a binding precedent. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the Division Bench judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is allowed.. The impugned order dated 24.08.2020 passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed.” 8. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are clearly distinguishable. The case of Dolly Chandra (supra) was not relating to recruitment but to admission in the MBBS Course and further there was no fault on the part of the candidate, rather it was on the part of the certificate issuing authority. In the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra), the only reason for rejection of the candidature was that there was a typographical mistake in the date of birth of the candidate, which mismatched from the documents and otherwise the candidate was eligible for selection. The other judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are passed by Single Bench. When the Division Benches of this court have pondered over the identical issue and have decided the same in clear terms, there is no occasion for this court to take a different view. 9. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench, no such correction or entry in the online application form can be allowed after the last date of submitting the application form or any extended period allowed by the respondents. Since the advertisement itself provides for specific instructions to the candidates for submitting their online application form, which clearly speak that a candidate before submitting online application form must go through the entries made in the online application and after due verification, should submit the same. The petitioners failed to notice the incorrect mentioning of the category in the application form. Such failure on part of the petitioners in no manner can be said to be inadvertent or human error. It shows the negligence of a candidate. 10. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and law referred above, this Court can safely held that the candidature of a candidate can only be considered on the basis of the entries made by a candidate in his/her online/offline application form, including the correction/amendment made in such application form within the period allowed by the recruiting agency. 10. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and law referred above, this Court can safely held that the candidature of a candidate can only be considered on the basis of the entries made by a candidate in his/her online/offline application form, including the correction/amendment made in such application form within the period allowed by the recruiting agency. A candidate cannot be permitted to make correction/amendment in the online application form after the last date of submitting the application form or up to the period and opportunity allowed to the candidate for making correction/amendment in the application. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petitions. 11. The instant writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed." 4. Taking in to account the aforesaid order, wherein various judgments/orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this court have been discussed, this court is of the considered view that the issue raised by the petitioner herein is no more res integra and she is not entitled for the relief prayed for. Accordingly, the instant writ petition dismissed in light of the order passed in the case of Reena Choudhary (supra). 5. The stay petition is also disposed of. 6. No order as to costs.