ORDER : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to declare the petitioner’s candidature as successful in the examination held for appointment on the post of the Constable (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs)/Organizations in the year 2018 and thereafter to appoint her on the said post. Further prayer has been made for quashing the “Rejection Slip” dated 14.03.2020 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent P.O./Member of the Recruitment Board whereby the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement/Notice dated 21.07.2018 for open examination i.e. “Constable (GD) in CAPFs, NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination-2018” with respect to recruitment of Constables (General Duty) in Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), ‘Sashastra Seema Bal’ (SSB), National Investigating Agency (NIA) and Secretariat Security Force (SSF) as well as of Riflemen (General Duty) in Assam Rifles. The petitioner after coming to know about the said advertisement, submitted her application for the said posts through online mode. Subsequently, admit-card was issued to her and she appeared in the examination. The petitioner got qualified in written examination, Physical Standard Test (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and medical examination. Having declared successful in the said examinations/tests, the petitioner was asked to submit the required documents for verification which she submitted before the concerned authority. However, the petitioner was surprised to acknowledge the “Rejection Slip” dated 14.03.2020 issued by the P.O./Member of the Recruitment Board informing that her candidature got rejected due to “Domicile District Mismatch”. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner subsequently came to know that while filling up online application (Anneuxre-1 to the writ petition), she had mentioned the name of State as “West Bengal” in the column of “State/UT of Domicile” as well as the name of district as “Purulia” in the column of “District of Domicile” at column nos. 16 and 17 respectively of the said online application form whereas the domicile certificate submitted by her for verification was of Village- Baligada, Gram Panchayat- Lali, Block-Namkum, P.O.-Lali, Thana- Namkum, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. 16 and 17 respectively of the said online application form whereas the domicile certificate submitted by her for verification was of Village- Baligada, Gram Panchayat- Lali, Block-Namkum, P.O.-Lali, Thana- Namkum, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was not computer skilled and therefore she had approached an internet café in Purulia (West Bengal) for getting the online application form filled up pursuant to the advertisement/notice in question. The person, who was filling up the online application form at the instance of the petitioner, had inadvertently mentioned the name of State as “West Bengal” at column no. 16 of the online application form relating to “State/UT of Domicile” and mentioned the name of district as “Purulia” at column no. 17 relating to “District of Domicile”. 5. It is further submitted that the said internet café was situated in Purulia (West Bengal) and the person who was filling up the petitioner’s online application form, perhaps got confused that she actually belonged to Purulia district (West Bengal). Since the said mistake was not intentional, rather the same happened due to lack of knowledge and confusion, as stated hereinabove, the respondent authorities may be directed to ignore the said error and to declare the petitioner successful in the said examination with further direction to appoint her on the post according to eligibility and preferences given by her in the application form in the order of priority. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 7, submits that the petitioner had applied for “Constable (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces, NIA & SSF and Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2018” pursuant to the advertisement/notice in question issued by the Staff Selection Commission. She has herself admitted in the writ petition that the “State/UT of Domicile” was mentioned as “West Bengal” and “District of Domicile” as “Purulia” in online application form. However, at the time of verification of the documents, she produced domicile certificate containing her residential status of Ranchi district (Jharkhand). Hence, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement/notice of the said examination, her candidature was rejected by the concerned CAPF under the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, at the time of verification of the documents, she produced domicile certificate containing her residential status of Ranchi district (Jharkhand). Hence, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement/notice of the said examination, her candidature was rejected by the concerned CAPF under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Under the said circumstance, no illegality has been committed by the respondent authorities in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature on the ground of “Domicile District Mismatch” as indicated in the “Rejection Slip”. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The petitioner has admitted in the writ petition that while filling up the online application form pursuant to the advertisement/notice in question, a mistake was committed at column nos. 16 and 17 of the same which related to the name of “State/UT of Domicile” and “District of Domicile” respectively. It is also an admitted fact that subsequent to passing of the examinations/tests, the petitioner was asked to submit the documents for verification whereupon she submitted her domicile certificate of the district of Ranchi (Jharkhand). 9. As per clause-3 of the advertisement/notice, the vacancies were State/UT wise and therefore the candidates were required to submit the domicile/Permanent Residential Certificate (PRC) against their State/UT. Moreover, paragraph-3 of the “Important Instructions to Candidates” appended with the said advertisement/notice had clarified that the collection of documents from the candidates and their verification would be carried out at the time of Detailed Medical Examination (DME) by the CAPFs and therefore, the candidatures would be accepted only provisionally. Candidates were also advised to go through the requirements of educational qualification, age, physical standards etc. and to satisfy themselves that they were eligible for the posts, before applying. It was also mentioned that while scrutiny of documents was undertaken during DME, if any claim made in the application was not found substantiated, the candidature would be cancelled straightway by the CAPFs. 10. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this Court is of the view that correctly mentioning the “State/UT of Domicile” and “District of Domicile” in the application form was of importance as the advertised vacancies were State/UT wise and the candidatures were to be considered accordingly. 10. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this Court is of the view that correctly mentioning the “State/UT of Domicile” and “District of Domicile” in the application form was of importance as the advertised vacancies were State/UT wise and the candidatures were to be considered accordingly. Since the petitioner committed the fundamental mistake in mentioning the actual “State/UT of Domicile” and “District of Domicile” which was subsequently noticed by the respondent authorities during documents verification, there appears to be no infirmity on their part in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature. 11. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.