ORDER : 1. Petitioner herein, being an aspirant for the post of Assistant Professor competed in the selection process and after being unsuccessful is before this Court challenging the criteria for evaluation of the answers given by the various candidates. 2. His grievance primarily is directed against the conditions of corrigendum dated 11.09.2023 (Annex.6), which read as under:- "1. Each question has five options marked as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You have to darken only one circle (bubble) indicating the correct answer on the Answer Sheet using BLUE BALL POINT PEN. 2. It is mandatory to fill one option for each question. 3. If you are not attempting a question then you have to darken the circle 5'. If none of the five circles is darkened, one third (1/3) part of the marks of question shall be deducted. 4. After solving question paper, candidate must ascertain that he/she has darkened one of the circles (bubbles) for each of the questions. Extra time of 10 minutes beyond scheduled time, is provided for this. 5. A candidate who has not darkened any of the five circles in more than 10% questions shall be disqualified." 2. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, would submit on a Court query, as to why the petitioner has belatedly assailed the aforesaid corrigendum, he would respond that the petitioner was not aware of the aforesaid corrigendum. Though it seems highly improbable that the petitioner would not be aware of the same as the said corrigendum was duly uploaded on the website of the selection agency - Rajasthan Public Service Commission. 3. On a further Court query, as to how he had the access to the corrigendum as on today, he would submit that he has obtained copy of the same from some other candidates. As to how other candidates obtained, there is no answer. 4. Be that as it may, it transpires that the conditions which have been prescribed in the corrigendum were also duly notified to all the candidates at the time of taking the examination, as is borne out from the Annex.3, which is the OMR-Sheet, wherein at the bottom of the same, the said conditions have been clearly reiterated. It is expected of every candidate that before taking the examination, he should fully read the applicable conditions and then only start to attempt the answers. It is expected of every candidate that before taking the examination, he should fully read the applicable conditions and then only start to attempt the answers. It is difficult to accept the contention that the petitioner even did not read the instructions before filling the answers and had he read so, the mistakes which seems to be cropped out for not knowing the corrigendum, could not have been made. 5. Be that as it may, in case the petitioner did not read the conditions, he did so at his own peril. Therefore, to contend that he was not aware of the corrigendum is not significant as the same very contents have been reiterated in the OMR-sheet and in all likelihood even on the question paper. 6. I am also not persuaded with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the corrigendum was since published after the advertisement, therefore, being retrospective in nature, it could not have been given effect to. The corrigendum is nothing but continuation of the advertisement which was issued before examination and, therefore, it has to be read in continuation of the original advertisement and thus, there is no retrospectivity. Moreover, the corrigendum merely cautions the candidates and give the guidelines as to how they were to attempt the answers after reading the question paper. Even in the absence of corrigendum, the selection agency could have done the needful by giving the same instructions in the question papers and/or OMR-sheet and to that extent, even the corrigendum was not required. 7. As regards the disqualification of the petitioner along with similarly situated candidates, I find no ground to interfere as the same has resulted due to their own mistake of not following the instructions. 8. In the parting, I may hasten to add that trite law is that candidate, who has remained unsuccessful in the selection process, cannot turn around belatedly to challenge the same on the ground that he was either not aware of the criteria or otherwise the criteria adopted by the selection agency across- board qua all the candidates was arbitrary and/or not in consonance with the advertisement and/or otherwise discriminatory. Accepting such an argument would be fraught with the danger of rather being hostile to those who have followed the instructions in the true spirit as against those who did not follow the instructions at their own peril. 9. Accepting such an argument would be fraught with the danger of rather being hostile to those who have followed the instructions in the true spirit as against those who did not follow the instructions at their own peril. 9. As an upshot, I find no ground to interfere. 10. Dismissed. 11. All pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.