ORDER : (Sameer Jain, J.) As the present petitions warrant adjudication on common question(s) of law, both are taken up for final disposal together, by way of a common order. 2. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:- i) "By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondent be directed to change the subject from Art History to History om the application form of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor (History. ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondent be directed after changing the subject, allow the petitioner to participate in the Assistant Professor History examination and if petitioner found successful then give appointment to her on the post of Assistant Professor (History). iii) Any other relied as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioners. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the crux of the matter is that the respondent-RPSC issued an advertisement dated 22.06.2023, inviting applications for the post of 'Assistant Professor'. However, on account of an inadvertent and bona fide mistake in the application form, the petitioners filled the wrong subject as 'Art History' in place of 'History'. It is submitted that the petitioners are otherwise duly qualified and eligible for the said advertised post. 4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the dictum of this Court as enunciated in SBCWP No. 2754/2024 titled as Shrawan Kumar Khokhar v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, and while placing reliance upon same, it was submitted that the instant petition is of an akin and indistinguishable nature and the controversy involved in the case in hand is already adjudicated in favour of the petitioner-herein, by way of the said judgment rendered in Shrawan Kumar Khokhar (Supra). Lastly, learned counsel also submitted that as on date, no third party rights have been created. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC has vehemently opposed the said contentions. However, he could not distinguish the factual matrix of the instant petition from that of the judgment cited above. Learned counsel also duly conceded to the fact that as on date, no third party rights have been created. 6. Heard and considered. 7. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC has vehemently opposed the said contentions. However, he could not distinguish the factual matrix of the instant petition from that of the judgment cited above. Learned counsel also duly conceded to the fact that as on date, no third party rights have been created. 6. Heard and considered. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record and also the judgment cited at the Bar, this Court is inclined to allow the prayers sought in the instant petition, for the following reasons: 5.1 That in Shrawan Kumar Khokhar (Supra), this Court has on a previous occasion, in an akin factual matrix, permitted the change of subject in the application form, especially looking to the bona fide nature of the mistake resulting into the filling of the wrong subject in the application form. 5.2 That as on date, no third party rights have been created, as the release of admit cards qua the said examination is scheduled on 16.05.2024. 8. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is allowed. 9. Consequently, the respondent-RPSC is directed to carry forward the requisite modifications in the application form of the petitioners, in terms of the prayer so advanced. 10. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed.