ORDER : 1. These two writ petitions are filed by different petitioners on the ground that pursuant to notification dated 13.12.2024, they have filled up online application forms for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professors but without cancelling the notification dated 13.12.2024 and further corrigendum dated 10.01.2025, a fresh advertisement dated 18.09.2025 is issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to ‘the RPSC’) and permitting to those candidates, who applied, pursuant to subsequent advertisement dated 18.09.2025. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners are not aware about the new and subsequent notification dated 18.09.2025 but when examination schedule is announced by RPSC then the petitioners have inquired about status of their application forms, and only then they come to know about date of their application form. Now, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Since both the writ petitions raises common question, therefore, so they were tagged together and we are deciding these writ petitions with a common order but for ready reference, we are referring prayer of lead matter i.e. Vinod Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. as under:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed by any appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and impugned action by debarring the candidature of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for selection on the post of Assistant professor in Home Science and further be directed to give appointment in case she stands in merit in terms of the advertisement dated 18.09.2025 with all consequential benefits. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance upon provisions of the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1986’) submitted that Part-III of the Rules of 1986 provides for recruitment process whereas Part-IV for procedure for direct recruitment. They submitted that Rule-19 of the Rules of 1986 provides for scrutiny of applications but after scrutiny, the applications of petitioners were found in order and were not rejected on the ground of scrutiny. They submitted that Rule-19 of the Rules of 1986 provides for scrutiny of applications but after scrutiny, the applications of petitioners were found in order and were not rejected on the ground of scrutiny. He further submitted that Rule 16A of the Rules of 1986 prescribes for frequency of direct recruitment and in the instant case, vacancy for year 2024 was cancelled but without opportunity to the petitioners. He further referred Rule 16 of the Rules of 1986, procedure for inviting applications by the RPSC by resorting to issue advertisement in public domain. They further referred Rule 7A of the Rules of 1986 about determination of vacancies and submitted that on 1 st April of every year, the number of actual vacancy has to be determined and the petitioners have a right to compete for the vacancy for the year which they have filled up an application form after issuance of advertisement by the RPSC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the entire advertisement dated 18.09.2025, nowhere it was mentioned that earlier advertisement dated 13.12.2024 and further corrigendum dated 10.01.2025 has been withdrawn. They further referred language of advertisement dated 18.09.2025 and submitted that no specific provision is made about status of the candidates who filled application forms pursuant to earlier advertisement dated 13.12.2024 and further corrigendum dated 10.01.2025. They further relied upon the process adopted by the RPSC and submitted that once the RPSC has accepted the application form, then it was duty of the RPSC to communicate by SMS or by letter about withdrawal (cancellation) of candidature of the petitioners. They also referred the language used in the advertisement and submitted that the RPSC was under an obligation pursuant to advertisement dated 13.12.2024 to communicate to the petitioner about outcome of their application but it has failed to adhere to its duties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further referred judgments in case of Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1700/2017) and Union of India and Anr. Vs. Harendra Gawaria (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1587/2022) submitted that two kinds of mistakes were recognized and first kind of mistake is applicable in case of petitioners as no one is harmed if permission is granted to the petitioners. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1700/2017) and Union of India and Anr. Vs. Harendra Gawaria (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1587/2022) submitted that two kinds of mistakes were recognized and first kind of mistake is applicable in case of petitioners as no one is harmed if permission is granted to the petitioners. They further submitted that if the writ petition of present petitioner is allowed then nobody would be affected but it will cure the human error committed by the RPSC. They also placed reliance upon judgment in case of State of Rajashtan Vs. Kedar , 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 157 and submitted that the executive instructions cannot supersede the provisions of the Rules of 1986, which were made under the authority of the Hon’ble Governor. They further submitted that here in this case, the RPSC has failed to show that advertisement dated 13.12.2024 was withdrawn and further a fresh advertisement was issued without protecting the rights of the petitioners. They also submitted that the rights of the petitioners were created once, as their application forms have been accepted and without intimation and opportunity of hearing, the denial of opportunity to the petitioners, has caused serious prejudice to the interest of present petitioners and it is sufficient to show that the rights of the petitioners were violated by an action of the RPSC. 7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the RPSC and he submitted that earlier the recruitment advertisement was issued on 13.12.2024 and thereafter, a corrigendum/notification was issued on 10.01.2025 but due to amendment in Rules of 1986 and under the instructions of Government, the notification dated 13.12.2024 and further corrigendum dated 10.01.2025 were withdrawn. He also submitted that after withdrawal of notification, a public notice was published on 18.09.2025 and circulated to all newspapers and same was published in daily newspapers across the State of Rajasthan in Edition dated 19.09.2025. He also submitted that after withdrawal of previous notification, a fresh advertisement was issued on 18.09.2025, wherein it was made compulsory that all candidates are required to submit their application forms afresh. He further pointed out that more than ninety two thousand applications were received pursuant to advertisement dated 18.09.2025, therefore, the contention of both the petitioners is not acceptable. He also submitted that after withdrawal of previous notification, a fresh advertisement was issued on 18.09.2025, wherein it was made compulsory that all candidates are required to submit their application forms afresh. He further pointed out that more than ninety two thousand applications were received pursuant to advertisement dated 18.09.2025, therefore, the contention of both the petitioners is not acceptable. He also submitted that, if there was no amendment in Rules of 1986, then the earlier advertisement would not have been withdrawn. Therefore, the RPSC is not at fault in withdrawal of the advertisement. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record and also considered judgments of Division Bench as referred by learned counsel for the petitioners along with provisions of Rules. 9. Admittedly, the petitioners have filled up the application form pursuant to advertisement dated 13.12.2024 for which a corrigendum was issued on 10.01.2025 about notification of 575 vacancies. The documents submitted with additional affidavit by the RPSC indicate that on 11.06.2025, Deputy Secretary-I, Department of Higher Education (Group-III) has communicated to the RPSC for cancellation of notification dated 13.12.2024 as the process of amendment in Rules was undertaken by the Government. Pursuant to the process were amendment, Rules 19A and 20 along with Schedule-II of Rules of 1986 were amended and a notification dated 16.09.2025 is issued. The RPSC is a recruiting agency and it has nothing to do with amendment in the rules as its mandate is limited to the process of recruitment. 10. The affidavit also indicate that a press note dated 18.09.2025 is issued by RPSC which was published in daily newspaper of Rajasthan on 19.09.2025. for ready reference, the press note is reproduced as under:- 11. Aforesaid indicate that on 18.09.2025, the RPSC has issued a press note which was in fact published as a Government advertisement which indicate that the notification dated 13.12.2024 is withdrawn. Since the advertisement dated 18.09.2025 is published in daily newspaper, therefore, we can certainly say that after withdrawal of the notification, a notice has been published to intimate public at large. Since the advertisement dated 18.09.2025 is published in daily newspaper, therefore, we can certainly say that after withdrawal of the notification, a notice has been published to intimate public at large. If the petitioners are serious students or candidates then even from horse’s mouth, they would have got the information about the withdrawal of earlier notification, therefore, on one count we are satisfied that the RPSC has withdrawn the notification dated 13.12.2024 pursuant to direction of the Government and published the withdrawal notice in public domain. 12. Now comes the second question : “Whether RPSC has committed any wrong by not protecting earlier application forms or not providing window to applicants who filled application on earlier occasion pursuant to advertisement dated 13.12.2024?” 13. In order to ascertain the claim, it is necessary to visit the fresh advertisement dated 18.09.2025. The advertisement begins with following lines :- 14. Aforesaid clearly indicate that the candidates who applied on earlier occasion are required to re-apply pursuant to current advertisement dated 18.09.2025. Nowhere it has been mentioned that earlier applications were protected by the RPSC. Again, it is domain of recruiting agency to issue administrative instructions and none has a vested right. 15. Now comes another question “Whether the petitioners are entitled to be communicated individually either by SMS or by a letter? 16. When we are facing uncontrollable rush in the recruitment process, then it is quite impossible for any recruitment agency to send letters individually to the candidates, the only process adopted is publication in public domain, or on digital media. Herein, the withdrawal of notification is published in public domain and moreover it has been clarified that all candidates are required to fill up the application form afresh pursuant to advertisement dated 18.09.2025. Therefore, neither it is mandatory nor practicable on part of RPSC to communicate each and every candidate about withdrawal and cancellation of previous notification for recruitment. If someone is not aware about day to day affairs, then what is fault of recruiting agency. 17. As regard to protection of interest of present petitioners are concerned, the provision of Rules as mentioned by learned counsel particularly Rules 7A, 16, 16A, 17, 18 and 19 of Rules of 1986 are not sufficient to say that the candidature of the petitioners is protected once they have filled an application form pursuant to the advertisement which was already withdrawn or cancelled. The Rules of 1986 only prescribes the process and the procedure but it does not protect the rights of any individual, who filed any application pursuant to any recruitment notification. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get shield of any of the Rule(s). 18. Now comes the last question which is if petitioners be permitted then nobody would be prejudice as it is the human error. 19. The specific para as relied by learned counsel from judgment in case of Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Anr. (supra) and Union of India and Anr. Vs. Harendra Gawaria (supra) is reproduced as under:- “To err is human, to forgive is divine” the mistake can be of two kinds. First kind of mistake would not be where no body is affected by a mistake and the second mistake where a third party is affected by a mistake. The difference in two mistakes would be that whereas the rectification of the first mistake would cause no prejudice, rectification of the second would cause a prejudice.” 20. Here in this case, only two persons are effected but ninety two thousand candidates have filled up their application form, which is sufficient to show that almost all candidates who filled application form pursuant to earlier advertisement dated 13.12.2024 understood the message (intention) of the RPSC and have re-filed a fresh application forms pursuant to advertisement dated 18.09.2025 but these two unfortunate petitioners have not filled fresh application form. In fact, it is a case of negligence or non-seriousness and both attribute to petitioners and not to anybody else. If anyone herself is at fault, it does not mean that she is entitled to file a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no human error on part of RPSC. 21. Here in this case, on basis of human error, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, therefore, the writ petitions fail on all counts. 22. As a result, these writ petitions are hereby dismissed with pending application(s), if any.