Judgment : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner, in the instant writ petition, has prayed for a direction to declare action of the respondents in not considering/allowing correction in inadvertent mistake of her category as General instead of OBC (NCL) as illegal and arbitrary and to treat the petitioner as eligible in the category of OBC (NCL) Women and while considering the petitioner in the aforesaid category, appointment be given to the petitioner along with consequential benefits. 2. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to OBC (NCL) category and possesses a certificate issued in this regard by the competent authority. Respondent No. 3-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred as ‘RSSB’) issued Advertisement No. 02/2023 dated 20.06.2023 inviting applications from all eligible persons for the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant. It is submitted that the candidates, who qualified the Common Eligibility Test (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the CET’) would be eligible to appear in the examination of Junior Accountant and in order to shortlist such candidates, a provision was made that only 15 times to the categorywise vacancies advertised for the aforesaid post shall be qualified to appear in the examination. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the application form for CET is filled online. As per the procedure contemplated in the advertisement dated 20.06.2023 for the post of Junior Accountant, it was provided that for the purpose of submitting online applications, the candidates were required to visit the official website of the respondent-RSSB and they were required to click on the option of 'apply online' link regarding recruitment advertisement. On opening of the link, the candidates were required to deposit registration fee for one time registration (OTR) and after filling the details on OTR, details with regard to category, status in respect of disability and home State as also all other details were required to be submitted. After completing OTR process, the candidates were required to apply through SSO ID. While submitting an application, the candidates were required to enter their CET online application form number and only after verifying the SSO Id as well as CET online application form number, the application form for the post of Junior Accountant would be opened. Thereafter, it was obligatory for the petitioner to fill up her own name, father’s/mother’s name, category, disability category, gender, date of birth etc. Thereafter, it was obligatory for the petitioner to fill up her own name, father’s/mother’s name, category, disability category, gender, date of birth etc. Thereafter, the petitioner was required to press on the submit button, which would in turn create online application number and to keep print out of such fully filled and submitted application form. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while filling the application form for CET, the petitioner has filled her category as OBC (NCL) and without verifying the CET application form number and details, there was no process for opening the application form for Junior Accountant. However, on account of technical glitch on the part of website of RSSB, while filling the application form for the post of Junior Accountant, the category of the petitioner was shown as General instead of OBC(NCL). Later on, when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid mistake, she submitted an affidavit to the effect that she has filled her application in OBC (NCL) category, therefore, her candidature should be considered in OBC (NCL) category instead of General category. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has secured 533.5081 marks in the examination, which are more than the cut off marks for OBC (NCL) category. However, despite securing more marks, only on account of the fact that due to technical glitch or inadvertent mistake, category of the petitioner was shown in the application form as 'General' and the petitioner was treated as 'General' candidate and was not granted benefit of reservation for OBC (NCL) and ultimately was not appointed on the post of Junior Accountant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner possesses a valid caste certificate showing her category as OBC (NCL), she cannot be deprived of the benefit for no fault of her own whereas the petitioner had submitted affidavit for including her in OBC (NCL) category. 5. Learned counsels for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that advertisement dated 20.06.2023 was amended through corrigendum notification dated 23.06.2023 in which it was cleared that CET registration form number was simply a mode for opening the application form for the post of Junior Accountant and before that, the candidates, in order to register themselves for filling the aforesaid application form, were required to fill details for one time registration. The form of one time registration was required to be filled up by the respective candidate by mentioning his/her name, parents’ name, category, educational qualifications and other relevant details. It was made clear that details once mentioned in OTR cannot be further amended or modified. Therefore, the candidates were required to fill up such details with due care and caution. It was also submitted that even procedure for making amendment was given in the corrigendum notification dated 23.06.2023, which states that necessary corrections, if permissible, could be done by the respective candidate after submitting the requisite fee of Rs. 300/- within seven days from the last date of submitting application form. 6. Learned counsels for the respondents further submits that it is totally irrelevant that under what category the petitioner appeared in CET. CET is conducted for so many examinations. The form filled up for the post of Junior Accountant pursuant to aforesaid advertisement is relevant and can be considered for all the details of the respective candidates. Merely on account of the fact that the petitioner applied in OBC (NCL) category in CET would not mean that it gave rise to a presumption that she would be treated in the same category while considering her candidature in the examination of Junior Accountant also. As stated above, the petitioner was required to fill up a separate form while applying for the post of Junior Accountant. Hence, category filled in the application form of Junior Accountant at the time of registration shall be considered for the said recruitment process. 7. Learned counsels for the respondents have pointed out that CET form was filled up by the petitioner on 19.10.2022. Thereafter, application form for the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant was filled by her on 24.07.2023 in which clearly the petitioner has been shown to have applied in General category. Despite there being an opportunity to make correction granted, it was not availed by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that examination for the aforesaid post was conducted on 11.02.2024. However, the candidates were issued admission cards for appearing in the examination which were also made available on the portal. In the admission card also, category of the petitioner was shown as General category candidate, but the petitioner did not raise any grievance in this regard and appeared in the examination as 'General' candidate. However, the candidates were issued admission cards for appearing in the examination which were also made available on the portal. In the admission card also, category of the petitioner was shown as General category candidate, but the petitioner did not raise any grievance in this regard and appeared in the examination as 'General' candidate. Thereafter, the candidates were required to appear for document verification and for that purpose also, they were required to fill an application form. In the application for documents verification filed by the petitioner on 21.08.2024, again she has shown her category as General whereas such application form was also filled up afresh by the petitioner. Hence, under these circumstances, where all the forms were filled by the petitioner herself showing her category to be General, later on she cannot be permitted to come out with a different plea that she should have been considered under OBC (NCL) category. 9. Learned counsels for the respondents informed the Court that the result of examination was declared on 17.12.2024 and thereafter, even appointments have been given to successful candidates. Under these circumstances, even third party rights have been created, but the petitioner has not impleaded any of the successful candidates/appointee in the instant writ petition. Therefore, learned counsels for the respondents prayed for rejecting the writ petition. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 11. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the details submitted by the petitioner in CET form were to be automatically shifted to the online application form for the post of Junior Accountant, does not appear to be correct in view of the clear guidelines given in advertisement dated 20.06.2023, modified on 23.06.2023. It is clear that there were two separate forms for CET as well as for examination of Junior Accountant. The form of Junior Accountant was also required to be filled up by the candidates separately by making entries in each and every column. Hence, the petitioner cannot shift her own responsibility upon the respondents by submitting that on account of technical glitch in the portal of the respondents, instead of OBC (NCL), she was shown in General category. 12. The form of Junior Accountant was also required to be filled up by the candidates separately by making entries in each and every column. Hence, the petitioner cannot shift her own responsibility upon the respondents by submitting that on account of technical glitch in the portal of the respondents, instead of OBC (NCL), she was shown in General category. 12. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is also not acceptable for the reason that for the purpose of appearing in examination, admission card was issued to the petitioner in which also, her category was shown as General category candidate, yet she did not submit any application for making corrections and she, conveniently, appeared as a General category candidate in the examination without any demur or protest. More so, at the time of documents verification, she was again required to fill a separate form by making individual entries in each column in which also she filled her category as 'General'. In view of all the aforesaid consistent acts, it could be gathered that the petitioner has consciously and knowingly filled her category as 'General' in the application form and it is only when she remained unsuccessful in securing proper place in the merit list of General category candidates, she has concocted an incorrect story. 13. In the light of above discussion, the petitioner is not entitled for consideration of her candidature in OBC (NCL) category and the respondents have rightly treated her candidature in General category. 14. In the case of Monika Prajapat Vs. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 236/2022 decided on 22.04.2022) , the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur observed that since the candidate did not approach the respondents for change of category within seven days provided by the respondents, her subsequent plea for change of category cannot be entertained. In that case also, the petitioner sought to change her category from General to OBC (NCL). Thus, the facts of the aforesaid case are similar to the instant case. 15. In another decision in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi (D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 804/2020 decided on 19.03.2021) , the Division Bench of this Court, after considering the earlier decisions, rejected the plea of change of category at subsequent stage. 15. In another decision in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Yogita Yaduvanshi (D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 804/2020 decided on 19.03.2021) , the Division Bench of this Court, after considering the earlier decisions, rejected the plea of change of category at subsequent stage. Similar views have been taken by Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the cases of Piyush Kaviya & Others Vs. the Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others (D.B. Writ Petition No. 198/2018 and other connected petitions decided on 10.04.2018) and Sonal Tyagi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7840/2019 decided on 12.07.2019) 16. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and in the light of aforesaid decision, this Court does not find any error in the action of the respondents. 17. Hence, writ petition filed by the petitioner fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed.