JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha and Sri Mujeeb Ahmad Siddiqui for the petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. State Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board and Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. These five petitions are those candidates who had applied for respective categories of posts as per their eligibility, advertised by the U.P. State Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the UPSSSC) on 05.12.2018 vide advertisement No.5-Examination/2018. 3. Petitioner Raj Kumar Yadav in Writ Petition No.10825 of 2014 had been applicant for the post of Mandi Supervisor Grade-II and Mandi Inspector in OBC category. While he filled up the form and got it successfully uploaded with the deposit of fee but quite late at the time when the results came to be declared, he came to realise that it was for his mistake that instead of OBC category he got considered as a General category candidate even though, he typed his father’s name as Ram Surat Yadav and wanted to claim reservation. Thus he got wrongly treated as of general category and having not scored at par with last candidate in the general category, he could not succeed in the written examination even though, he scored better than the last successful candidate selected in the OBC category. 4. In Writ Petition No.11374, petitioner Narendra Nath had also applied for the post of Mandi Supervisor Grade-II and Mandi Inspector in OBC category, for which he was eligible, however, it was later on that he realised that instead of post in the category 5, he inadvertently applied for Mandi Paryavekshak category. 5. In Writ Petition No.11998 of 2024, petitioner had intended to apply against post of Junior Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department in SC category but at the time of declaration of results of the written test, he realised that he got wrongly applied in General category. 6. In Writ Petition No.11455 of 2024, petitioner had intended to apply against post of Assistant Statistical Officer, Minor Irrigation Department under OBC category but after the publication of result of written examination, he realised that he had mistakenly applied in General category. 7. 6. In Writ Petition No.11455 of 2024, petitioner had intended to apply against post of Assistant Statistical Officer, Minor Irrigation Department under OBC category but after the publication of result of written examination, he realised that he had mistakenly applied in General category. 7. In Writ Petition No.11229 of 2024, petitioner Ajai Kumar had intended to apply against post of Assistant Statistical Officer and Assistant Research Officer in OBC category but later on he realised, he got filled up the form mistakenly under un-reserved category. 8. Thus, in all the above petitions the grievance is that either the category or the post of the respective petitioners got wrongly filled up to their disadvantage and since it was a mistake for sheer inadvertence without there being any deliberate attempt to mislead the Commission and that too when the petitioners were not to gain any advantage for filling up wrong category or wrong name of post, the respondent Commission ought to have taken pragmatic view of the matter and ought to have permitted the petitioners to rectify the error in their online submission of form through offline mode. 9. Sri Kushwaha, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has argued that in the event, there is no deliberate attempt to give wrong information either while filling up the category in which the post had been applied for or for a particular post mistakenly in place of the post for which the candidate had the requisite eligibility, such mistakes should be taken due to the inadvertence and without any deliberate intention and hence such candidates, therefore, should not be made to suffer for the same. He submits that, if there is no element of mischief on the part of candidates, then such mistakes should be taken to have been innocently committed and hence deserved condonation. 10. In support of his above contention, Sri Kushwaha has relied upon authority of Supreme Court in the matter of Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2024 SCC Online SC 2 and has placed before the Court paragraph nos.19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 that run as under: “…..19. The learned counsel for the State drew attention to the verification by the appellant, of the details in a printed form furnished by the selection board. He contended that the appellant signed the form which carried the date of birth. The learned counsel for the State drew attention to the verification by the appellant, of the details in a printed form furnished by the selection board. He contended that the appellant signed the form which carried the date of birth. First of all, the form was a printed form which reflected the date of birth as given by the appellant and the appellant signed the printed form on 10.03.2018. We are inclined to accept the explanation of the appellant that since the appellant was unaware of his own mistake he had mechanically signed the printed form. It is only later, on 11.06.2018, on the publication of the result that the appellant realized the error. We do not think that the appellant could be penalised for this insignificant error which made no difference to the ultimate result. Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression. 20. In this case, the appellant has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafe, got the better of the appellant. He omitted to notice the error and even failed to avail the corrective mechanism offered. In the instant case, we cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed. In the order dated 22.11.2021 in C.A. No. 6983 of 2021 [Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.], this Court rightly observed that though technology is a great enabler, there is at the same time, a digital divide. 22. Learned counsel for the State, in the written submissions, stated that the instructions clearly stipulated that if two or more candidates obtain the same marks in the Physical Eligibility Test, their relative rank in the final merit list could be determined on the basis of their date of birth. The implication in the submission is that the date of birth is a significant aspect. On that basis, he submits that the cancellation ought to be upheld. We do not find merit in the submission. The original date of birth, as available is 18.12.1997, in the educational certificates. There is no dispute that the appellant’s date of birth was, in fact, 18.12.1997. On that basis, he submits that the cancellation ought to be upheld. We do not find merit in the submission. The original date of birth, as available is 18.12.1997, in the educational certificates. There is no dispute that the appellant’s date of birth was, in fact, 18.12.1997. In view of that, we do not see the said clause in the instructions as an impediment for the selection of the appellant. 23. Learned counsel for the State has also, in the written submissions, cited the judgment of this Court in Yogesh Kumar and Others vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 548 . The said judgment is clearly distinguishable. There the issue was about allowing entry of ineligible persons into the selection. While the eligibility prescribed was Teacher’s Training Certificate from a recognized institute or intermediate or equivalent from a recognized Board/University with an elective subject in the required language at the matric level, candidates with B.Ed. degree sought appointment as Assistant Teacher. Negating their claim, this Court held that the B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than the Teacher’s Training Certificate, because the nature of the training imparted for grant of certificate and for grant of degree was totally different. In that context, this Court held that deviating from the rules and allowing entry to ineligible persons would deprive many others who could have competed for the post. Yogesh Kumar (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. Equally distinguishable are the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Rohit Kumar and Another vs. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1219 and Pradeep Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, (2022) 1 HCC (Del) 287. 24. In the case of Rohit Kumar (supra), the undisputed facts, as is clear from para 10 of the judgment, was that the candidate was declared unsuccessful on two counts, namely, that the OBC certificate uploaded by the candidate was not as per the format as mentioned in the advertisement and additionally on the ground that the date of issuance of the certificate was wrongly mentioned in the online application. 25. In Pradeep Kumar (supra), the identity proof (Aadhaar Card) was not uploaded and instead the self photograph of the candidate has been uploaded. We find that the said two judgments are distinguishable on facts for the reasons set out above. 26. 25. In Pradeep Kumar (supra), the identity proof (Aadhaar Card) was not uploaded and instead the self photograph of the candidate has been uploaded. We find that the said two judgments are distinguishable on facts for the reasons set out above. 26. On the peculiar facts of this case, considering the background in which the error occurred, we are inclined to set aside the cancellation. We are not impressed with the finding of the Division Bench that there was no prayer seeking quashment of the results declared over the web. A reading of the prayer clause in the writ petition indicates that the appellant did pray for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature treating his date of birth as 18.12.1997 and also sought for a direction for issuance of an appointment letter. A Writ Court has the power to mould the relief. Justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities.” 11. He has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Archana Rastogi v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Education Civil Secretariat Lucknow and others 2012 (3) ADJ 219 : 2012 Legal Eagle (ALD) 148 and has placed before the Court following paragraphs of the judgment: “...From the record, it is seen that in her Application Form while applying for Special B. T.C.-2008, the appellant-petitioner had mentioned the marks obtained by her in High School as 256 whereas in actuality the marks obtained by her as per her High School Examination Certificate was 356. Further as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the error in the Application Form has crept only through sheer human error and, therefore, the actual marks obtained by her as evident from the High School Certificate being 356 ought not to have been ignored. From perusal of the column 13 of the advertisement (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), it will be seen that along with the Application Form the candidates were also required to submit their High School and other certificates in support of the declaration of marks made by them in column 10 of the advertisement. Thus, the High School Examination Certificate having been appended to the Application Form it cannot be said that there was no material before the competent authority to verify the actual marks obtained by the appellant-petitioner. Thus, the High School Examination Certificate having been appended to the Application Form it cannot be said that there was no material before the competent authority to verify the actual marks obtained by the appellant-petitioner. In fact, the testimonials in support of the education qualification are, as a matter of fact, required to be filed for purposes of verification of the statement and declaration made in column 10 of the advertisement and, in such circumstances, the High School Certificate of the appellant-petitioner being before the competent authority, even if the appellant had, through human error mentioned her marks obtained in her High School Certificate as 256, the competent authority ought to have verified the same from the High School marks shown in the High School Certificate appended to the appellant's Application Form. Apparently, this was not done and the candidature of the appellant was rejected in a most cursory and arbitrary fashion relying purely upon the declaration made in the Application Form. It may further be noticed that by mentioning her High School marks in the application form as 256 instead of 356 the appellant-petitioner did not stand to gain any ulterior benefits and it is not a case where the appellant-petitioner deliberately tried to mislead the respondents for any personal gain. These facts have not been considered at all by the competent authority while rejecting the representation of the appellant-petitioner. However, as we have already mentioned that since the original testimonials were appended to the application form, the competent authority ought to have given credence to the High School Examination Certificate appended to the Application Form of the appellant rather than ignoring the same and arbitrarily rejecting the candidature of the appellant-petitioner merely on the basis of lesser marks wrongly disclosed in the Application Form. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 2.11.2011.” 12. He has also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Mahima Srivastava v. State of U.P. 2014 (10) ADJ 512 : 2014 Legal Eagle (ALD) 1670 and placed paragraph no.6 thereof that runs as under: “….No doubt the conditions as mentioned in the advertisement, condition NO. 11 clause 14 clearly provides that upon any discrepancy in the marks mentioned in the form and the marks mentioned in the mark sheet, the form would be rejected out rightly. 11 clause 14 clearly provides that upon any discrepancy in the marks mentioned in the form and the marks mentioned in the mark sheet, the form would be rejected out rightly. But at the same time we cannot be oblivious to the factor of ‘human error’ which is a normal phenomena and happens with everyone. All that is to be seen the bona fide of the applicant. If from the perusal of the record it appears that such error would place the applicant at a better position, then doubts can be had and motives can also be attributed. But if the error is such which is to the disadvantage of the applicant then doubting her motive would be unjustified. As in the present case, the mark sheet of B.Ed. Revealed 726 marks whereas the applicant committed a mistake while filling the form wherein she mentioned B.Ed. Marks as 721. Such a mistake has to be taken to be a human error or a bona fide mistake as the applicant would not derive any benefit by disclosing lesser marks than she actually scored.” 13. He has also placed reliance upon another judgment in the matter of A bhishek Prakash Sengar And Another v. State of U.P. And Another , passed in Writ-A No.28178 of 2016 decided on 23.08.2018, in which the Court has observed thus: “…..The record reveals that petitioners have scored marks much above the cut-off in the respective category of Pharmacist, but only because of inadvertent description of post code in his online form, their candidature has not been considered. Various judgements have been relied upon by counsel for the petitioners in order to contend that such inadvertent error ought to be allowed to be corrected and that action of respondents is wholly arbitrary.” 14. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench judgment delivered in Special Appeal No.75 of 2013, decided on 18.1.2013 in which earlier judgment in Archana Rastogi (supra) has been followed. 15. Sri Kushwaha has also relied upon a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Km. Rajnish Yadav v. Sate of U.P. & Ors. , in which wrong code was filled and gender got wrongly filled up by the candidate. The Court in this judgment has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Mahima Srivastava (supra). 16. Rajnish Yadav v. Sate of U.P. & Ors. , in which wrong code was filled and gender got wrongly filled up by the candidate. The Court in this judgment has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Mahima Srivastava (supra). 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. And others , in which vide paragraph no.18, the Court has held thus: “18. In Jyoti Yadav’s case (supra) the Government Order dated 5.3.2021 has also been considered and the law in this regard has been categorically clarified as is mentioned in para Nos.14 and 15 of the said decision quoted hereinabove. It has been categorically held that wherever the mistakes committed by the candidates purportedly gave additional marks or weightage greater than what they actually deserve, according to the communication dated 5.3.2021, their candidature would stand rejected. However, wherever mistakes committed by the candidates actually put them at the disadvantage as against their original entitlement or the variation could be one attributable to the University or issuing authority, an exception was made by said communication, the reason for these two categories of candidates differently cannot thus be called irrational. From the facts as discussed hereinabove, it is apparent that the petitioner herein falls in the category of those candidates who had actually put themselves at a disadvantage position and therefore, even as per Jyoti Yadav’s case (supra), the case of the petitioner is covered for grant of relief as observed therein.” (emphasis added) 17. Sri Kushwaha, has also relied upon another judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Raj v. State of U.P. and Ors. , 2013 (2) ADJ 558 : 2012 Legal Eagle (All) 245 , in which vide paragraph nos. 13 and 14, the Court has held thus: “It is true that in the advertisement a clear method for calculation of the marks is mentioned. The petitioner, it appears, that inadvertently ignored the said clause of advertisement. He had mentioned his marks on the basis of existing norms applicable in the years 2004 in Special B.T.C. Training Course. However, it is equally true that he has enclosed all the mark sheets along with his application form. The petitioner, it appears, that inadvertently ignored the said clause of advertisement. He had mentioned his marks on the basis of existing norms applicable in the years 2004 in Special B.T.C. Training Course. However, it is equally true that he has enclosed all the mark sheets along with his application form. While, calculating the marks, the authority concerned ought to have ignored the mistake of the petitioner or a notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner giving an opportunity to correct the obvious human error committed by him in filing up the form. One of the requirements was to enclose all the necessary documents and mark sheets. Statements of the marks in marksheet are final not the entry in application form. While filing the form human error can not be completely ruled out, especially, from inexperienced young candidates. They should not be penalized so harshly for such error. A candidate whose marks are above cut of marks and is in merit list, deserves an opportunity before his candidature is rejected only on some error. There was no element of misrepresentation and petitioner would not get any benefit for his act. This Court, in the case of Kavita Rani Vs. State of U.P. and others, [ 2008 (4) ESC 2762 (All)], has held that in case there is any human error, in that event, it should be ignored. Likewise view has been taken in Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 83 AIR 1992(All). That was also a case of Special B.T.C. Training. The candidate therein had also mentioned wrong marks in the form. The court held that it was mere human error and was due to inadvertent mistake. There was no intention to gain anything by wrongly reflecting in application form.” 18. Sri Kushwaha has also placed reliance upon an order of Special Appellate Bench in the case of Puspraj Singh v. State of U.P. And Ors. being Special Appeal No.75 of 2013 allowed on 18.01.2013 by making following observation: …..“Petitioner had submitted an application for B.T.C. Course 2012 and in the application form he wrongly described himself as female candidate for which his application has not been accepted as yet. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition considering the condition mentioned in paragraph-4 of the guidelines prescribing therein that in case incorrect entires have been made, the application shall not be accepted. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition considering the condition mentioned in paragraph-4 of the guidelines prescribing therein that in case incorrect entires have been made, the application shall not be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of this court in Archana Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. and others in special appeal no. 2312 of 2011 disposed of on 13th January, 2012 substantiate his submission that incorrect entry was a human error. Petitioner does not stand to gain anything by making such incorrect entries. In the said case candidate therein had also made incorrect entires in relation to the marks obtained by him. This court held the same to be a human error and directed the respondent therein to provide B.T.C. Training to the appellant. The ratio drawn in the said judgement applies to the present case also. We therefore, dispose of the special appeal with the following direction:- 1. Mistake committed by the petitioner being unintentional he may be permitted to make necessary correction in the application and his application be considered for B.T.C. Course . The special appeal is allowed. The judgement of the Single Judge dated 7.1.2014 is set aside.” 19. Countering the above submissions, and meeting the authorities cited by Sri Kushwaha, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the Commission has submitted that terms and conditions were very specific under the advertisement that provided for correction of mistakes before finally submitting the fee and once the fee came to be deposited then candidate would not be permitted to change his/her category. He has taken Court to the note appended and given below the declaration prescribing under the advertisement for a candidate to make. 20. Sri Awasthi submitted that if these mistakes are permitted to be corrected then there would be no end and the selection process would never be completed, however, he submitted that in the present case not only the recommendations have been finally made by the Commission but State has also issued appointment orders and, therefore, now the matter has remained alive only for the academic purposes. 21. 21. Sri Awasthi, in support of his submission that once the application form had been finally filled up and terms and conditions were specifically given providing for a change in the application form to a limited extent and further timeline was also provided and hence no change could be permitted, has placed reliance upon the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay K. Dixit and Others v. The State of U.P. and Others being Civil Appeal No.1961 of 2019 [arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.31539 of 2012] converted in Civil Appeal No.1962 of 2019 decided on 22.02.2019. 22. He has placed paragraph no.7 and 8 of the judgment that run as under: ….“7. Admittedly, the Rules governing the selection to the posts of Technician Grade-2 (Apprenticeship Electrical) require every candidate to submit a DOEACC certificate signifying completion of 80 hours CCC at the time of interview. Such condition was made compulsory. The advertisement also contained the condition regarding submission of the certificate at the time of interview. There is no doubt that there exists a power of relaxation of any of the Rules which could be exercised by the Chairman of the Corporation. It is nobody’s case that the Chairman/ Managing Director was not competent to relax the Rules. But, the submission made by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners is that the relaxation could not have been done as the advertisement did not mention about a possible relaxation of the Rules. We find force in the said submission made on behalf of the Writ Petitioners as this Court in Bedanga Talukdar (supra) held as follows: “29. .. .. .. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” (emphasis added) 8. We are in respectful agreement with the above judgment of this Court. Exercise of the power of relaxation without informing the candidates about the existence of such power would be detrimental to the interests of others who did not possess the certificate and did not take part in the selection process. We are unable to accept the submission that selection is on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the written test and interview and that the DOEACC certificate is not an essential requirement. The Rule as well as the advertisement provide for submission of the certificate at the time of interview, compulsorily. The Rule further provides for production of the certificate as an additional requirement for selection. The above stipulation in the Rule as well as the advertisement cannot be ignored.” 23. Sri Awasthi also relied upon judgment of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ruksar Khan v. State of U.P. And Others [2020 (7) ADJ 525] , in which vide paragraph no.62 and 63, the Court has held thus: …..“62. In matters of public affairs, like the process of recruitment to posts under the State, there has to be an element of certainty. The process of recruitment must proceed on the foundation of firm and reliable data. A public recruitment cannot be permitted to be a shaky affair with shifting positions of aspirants about their candidature. In matters of public affairs, like the process of recruitment to posts under the State, there has to be an element of certainty. The process of recruitment must proceed on the foundation of firm and reliable data. A public recruitment cannot be permitted to be a shaky affair with shifting positions of aspirants about their candidature. If this were to be permitted, it would introduce uncertainties in the recruitment process leading to its embarrassment. It has also to be borne in mind that where a number of posts have to be filled up, expeditious conclusion of the recruitment process requires an unhassled and unhindered course to be run. It is bearing, thus, objectives all legitimate, in mind that the candidates have been held bound down by the entries they make in the application forms. This cannot be permitted to be set at naught by falling back upon the rather out of place consideration for ''human error'. There is an added feature about those cases where mistake is an omission to claim a reservation category. The process of recruitment has gone ahead, where 1,46,060 candidates have been selected in the written examination held by the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj. The next stage of recruitment, that is, counselling is underway or completed, in the hands of the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The Basic Shiksha Parishad had published a notification for the purpose way-back on 16.05.2020 and initiated the process of final selection. To permit a candidate at this stage to claim a reservation category, which he/ she has omitted to mention in the online application form, would introduce a new aspirant in the concerned reservation pool, and in all probability may lead to displacement of a candidate, already selected. It would work grave injustice and inequity. 63. I had occasion to consider the issue about rectification to an application form relating to the present examination, where the error sought to be corrected was about an unclaimed reservation category, in Writ - A No.4552 of 2020, Deepti Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, decided on 23.06.2020. In Deepti Singh (supra), it was held: "This Court has keenly considered the matter. In Deepti Singh (supra), it was held: "This Court has keenly considered the matter. It is true that the mistake on the petitioner's part of not mentioning her horizontal reservation category may be inadvertent but the terms and conditions in the form do not permit the petitioner to reform the same lateron, once she has filled up and submitted the examination form, without claiming something as important as a reservation category. A reservation category is one that places the petitioner in a special selection pool of 2% candidates. Once the recruitment process has gone ahead, a selectee in that pool whose result has been declared or on way would be disturbed because the petitioner now makes her claim, if permitted. This kind of a late reform of the petitioner's candidature entitling her to seek selection under a reservation category cannot be permitted in the opinion of this Court.” 24. Sri Awasthi further relied upon a recent judgment of another co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vaishal Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and Others , in which vide paragraph nos.16 and 17, the Court has held thus: ….“16. This Court in the matter of Santosh Kumar Pandey (Supra) has taken firm view that once the petitioner has not proceeded to comply with the instruction and committed error, is not entitled for any relief and dismissed the writ petition Relevant paragraph of the said judgement are quoted below:- "To see and ensure that identity of candidate is not reflected from the Answer Sheet and there is zero humane interference, important instructions have been issued with clear cut mention that in case there is an error, following consequences would ensue. Once instructions in question are coupled with consequences, then such instructions necessarily will have to be accepted as of being mandatory in character. ...................................................................................................... Once such is the factual situation and the law on the subject is clear that instructions in question have to be interpreted in the context of object for which it has been framed and here, in this era of computerization, once petitioner has proceeded not to comply with the instructions and has committed error not at one place but at two places in the OMR sheet and same mistake has been repeated in attendance-sheet, then he has to blame himself and same cannot be dubbed as humane error. Consequently, in the facts of the case, in case any directive is given to U.P. Public Service Commission to undertake such an exercise as has been prayed by the petitioner, then it would not only open flood gate, same would make way for humane intervention and give chance of manipulation and manoeuvring in the fool proof scheme prepared by U.P. Public Service Commission and any interference by us would tantamount to creating a fresh forum i.e. not provided for. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly." 17. I have also perused the judgment of this Court in the case of Km. Priyanka Chaturvedi (supra). The said judgment was placed by the learned counsel for the Commission in reply to submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the submission of application form on the last date. Court has considered this view and reject the same. Relevant paragraph of the said judgement is quoted hereinbelow:- "The petitioner has sufficient opportunity to go about the exercise of uploading his application form for Main Examination of P.C.S.-2021. He took risk of waiting for the last date and by some misfortune, could not do so on account of vagaries of the internet, which the petitioner has alleged in the writ petition. Even otherwise, the grounds for passing the impugned order by U.P. Public Service Commission has not been denied by the petitioner in her amendment application. Further, the petitioner cannot be permitted to derail the entire recruitment process as she chose to wait for the last date. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief." (emphasis added) 25. Sri Awasthi has also placed a judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of J&K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad and others, (2005) 12 SCC 498 , in which vide paragraph nos.3, 4 and 5, the Court has held thus: ….“3. The first respondent thereafter challenged the selection by filing a writ petition and the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held that the first respondent was not entitled to the benefit of reservation based on SRO 126 of 1994 as he had not indicated in his application for the preliminary examination that he was entitled to such benefit. The writ petition filed by the first respondent was dismissed and he challenged the same by way of LPA (SW) No. D- 29 of 2002 and the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held that the first respondent herein in fact possesses the eligibility for being considered in the reserved category even before the date of advertisement and he submitted his proof only later and that by itself did not disentitle him from claiming the reservation. Accordingly, the LPA was allowed and the direction to treat him under the reserved category was issued. This is challenged before us by the Public Service Commission. 4. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that as the last date for submitting the application was 16-3-1999 the respondent did not produce the certificate claiming reservation nor did he indicate in the application that he belongs to that category. It was submitted that several other applications of similar nature were rejected by the Commission and the respondent's application also was treated alike and the Division Bench erred in coming to the conclusion that he was entitled to get reservation. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand pointed out that though the first respondent did not avail of the benefit of reservation when he submitted the application for the preliminary examination he had submitted the application for the main examination in which he had clearly shown that he was entitled to get reservation as per SRO 126 of 1994 dated 20-6- 1994 and he had also produced the certificate along with the application for the main examination. It is submitted that he had claimed the reservation for the main examination and he should have been treated as a reserved candidate in the main examination. 5. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by both the parties. The contention of the first respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for selection as a candidate entitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate along with his application. The fact that he has not availed of the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate along with his application. The fact that he has not availed of the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He passed the preliminary examination as a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examination he cannot avail of reservation on the ground that he was successful in getting the required certificate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selection could only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the qualification and the production of the certificate at a later stage would make him entitled to seek reservation. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeal. No costs.” (emphasis added) 26. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties and having gone through the records and the authorities cited by them, I find two questions to be arising for consideration of the court: (i) Weather error committed by the petitioners while filling up the application form claimed to be for shear inadvertence, are attributable to human error on the principle of to “err’ is human” and hence condonable? (ii) Weather in the given facts and circumstances, even if mistakes committed by petitioners are innocent, they can still be given any benefit when the selection and appointment process has already stood concluded qua recruitment in question? In the present case petitioners would not qualify in their respective reserved category for their mistakes either in giving details correctly as to their reserved category or for applying against wrong category of post. Interestingly all of them came to realise mistakes after the results were finally declared. Interestingly all of them came to the court not upon realising their mistakes but after the results were finally declared. 27. The formality qua filling up the application form is to check it thoroughly regarding details before finally submitting the form and submitting the fee. Interestingly all of them came to realise mistakes after the results were finally declared. Interestingly all of them came to the court not upon realising their mistakes but after the results were finally declared. 27. The formality qua filling up the application form is to check it thoroughly regarding details before finally submitting the form and submitting the fee. One needs to be very vigilant before the application form is submitted and uploaded as there would not be any further chance available for further correction in the same. It is necessary to reproduce here the relevant extract of the clause as contained under the advertisement that provided for procedure for filling up the application form, correction, if any, to be made and its final submission resulting registration of application. 28. ‘Note’ above is highlighted in the advertisement which means every candidate was cautioned to remain careful and vigilant while filling up the form, naturally while giving personal details, details of certificates relied upon and further other details like reservation, category and posts etc. Once declaration is uploaded and fee is submitted, as per the provisions reproduced above, there will be no further opportunity to correct the category and make any other correction. 29. The question now arises, if category for the instance in the matter of vertical reservation is correctly filled up but the details of reservation certificate or further personal details are so filled up that they do not match with certificates or application is got filled up for a wrong post though the posts were there under the advertisement for which such candidates were eligible, whether form of such a candidate should be outrightly rejected or by default they would fall in unreserved category or post for which otherwise such candidates are eligible. 30. According to the Commission’s counsel and as per practice, such candidates are treated under unreserved category and also for the post for which they are eligible, as the case may be. This is perhaps on the principle that whoever does not fall in a reserved category falls in unreserved category and likewise whoever is eligible for a particular post, his candidature would be given for the said post only, if applied for. 31. This, in my view appears to be right because reservation is exception to the merit in general. This is perhaps on the principle that whoever does not fall in a reserved category falls in unreserved category and likewise whoever is eligible for a particular post, his candidature would be given for the said post only, if applied for. 31. This, in my view appears to be right because reservation is exception to the merit in general. In other words, merit is relaxed to offer certain categories of citizens a preferential right of consideration who have remained deprived for generation for socio economic structure earlier being on caste based hierarchy. The framers of the constitution must have had this idea in their mind that with the passage of time while Indian economy grows into trillions, there will be employment available to everyone and merit will not be compromised. 32. Coming back to the advertisement, I find that advertisement very categorically provided for no change in category after declaration stood signed and uploaded. Meaning thereby that category applied for will stand intact for the mistakes, which upon verification of the details may have rendered the form filled up to be not compatible to the documents filed in support of the reservation quota applied for. Thus such of the candidates, despite reservation quota applied will fall in unreserved category by default and there will be no further change permissible. Likewise if a candidate applied for a particular post, whereas, he wanted consideration for another post, his application form for the post applied for will be considered and not for the one which a candidate might have had intended to apply at the time of filling up the form. 33. Now, coming to the mistakes, I find that petitioner Rajkumar Yadav applied in general category even though he claimed his name to be surname as Yadav. He was also issued with admit card showing him of general category. He thereafter made an application before the Commission on 20.02.2019 and 25.05.2019 that he should be considered in OBC category but Commission did not pass any order and he was permitted to appear as a general category candidate only. 34. He was also issued with admit card showing him of general category. He thereafter made an application before the Commission on 20.02.2019 and 25.05.2019 that he should be considered in OBC category but Commission did not pass any order and he was permitted to appear as a general category candidate only. 34. Petitioner Ajay Kumar who belonged to Economically Weaker Section and entitled for horizontal reservation in EWS category but he failed to apply in the EWS category and after he appeared in the written test and results were published, he came to know that he has been taken in general category as he scored 55.75 marks much above the last cut off in the EWS category which being 46 marks. According to him, mistake had occurred in the cyber cafe where he had filled up the application form. 35. Petitioner Ashok Kumar Yadav also got his application form filled up in general category, whereas, he belonged to OBC category. Mistakes were again attributed to cyber cafe. Petitioner Ashok Kumar Yadav claims that one Shivam Parashar (Roll No.053907) was a candidate who had applied mistakenly in general category but had been offered selection in SC category. 36. Petitioner Narendra Nath claimed to have belonged to SC category and hence according to him there was no reason to apply in the general category but for the human error he filled up the application form in general category. He was issued with admit card in unreserved category for which he claimed to have filed an objection along with a notarized affidavit as he came to know this fact that after downloading the admit card on 14.04.2022. He also claimed that Shivam Parashar was permitted to change his category. 37. Petitioner Manish Kumar Yadav claimed that he wanted to apply for the post of Mandi Inspector at item no.5 of the advertisement in Advertisement No.1 but he mistakenly applied for other post of Mandi Supervisor Grade II. The stand taken is that this was mistakenly done otherwise he had scored better marks in OBC category to be selected against post of Mandi Inspector. 38. The stand taken is that this was mistakenly done otherwise he had scored better marks in OBC category to be selected against post of Mandi Inspector. 38. From the above discussions a fact that emerges out is that all petitioners claim a sheer human error due to inadvertence while filling up the application form in assigning their category to which they all belonged and in one case the candidate skipped mentioning the post for which he intended to apply. 39. Thus, all the petitioners claimed that the mistake attributable to him was sheer human error and claimed innocence. They claimed that they by making a wrong mention of the category they were not to gain any advantage and, therefore, were all entitled to the benefits in terms of the law laid down in the authorities cited on their behalf by learned Advocate Sri Kushwaha. 40. Here It would be equally worth mentioning that petitioner Raj Kumar Yadav claimed to have applied for correction on 20.02.2019 and then on 25.05.2019 just after downloading the admit card. The application as filled up by the said petitioner has been brought on record. Thus, according to the said petitioner he should be taken to have participated in the written examination under protest. Another petitioner, Ashok Kumar Yadav claimed to have made an application on 03.05.2023 for rectifying the mistake at the time of document verification even though result of written examination was declared on 15.02.2023. In the counter affidavit filed in the matter of Ashok Kumar Yadav by the respondent Commission, self declaration made by the petitioner Ashok Kumar Yadav dated 03.05.2023 has been brought on record as CA-2. In this self declaration, I find petitioner himself has declared to be not of reserved category. Pleadings to this effect have been taken in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit and this has not been denied in para 7 of the rejoinder affidavit. Para 8 of the counter affidavit and para 7 of the rejoinder affidavit are being reproduced hereinunder:- “8. That document verification conducted on 03.05.2023 at the Commission’s office and at the time of document verification a self-declaration form has been submitted by petitioner. Photocopy of self-declaration form dated 03.05.2023 is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.-CA-2 to this affidavit.” “7. That the contents of the paragraph no. That document verification conducted on 03.05.2023 at the Commission’s office and at the time of document verification a self-declaration form has been submitted by petitioner. Photocopy of self-declaration form dated 03.05.2023 is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.-CA-2 to this affidavit.” “7. That the contents of the paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit need no comments it has been reiterated a proceeding of paragraph No. 3 of the supplementary affidavit.” 41. None of the other petitioners have filed any document to evidence that he either made an application to the Commission prior to the written test or even subsequently even though he claimed to have come to know about the mistakes. 42. Sri Kushwaha learned Advocate despite knowing the fact that counter affidavit was filed only in the matter of Ashok Kumar Yadav (Writ-A No.11455 of 2024) insisted for final hearing as only legal issue was involved in matters and hence pleaded that counter affidavit filed in Writ-A No.10825 of 2024 should be read in respect of all other petitions. Thus, it is in these circumstances, that Court proceeded to fix date for final disposal of the matter. 43. The order passed by this Court is reproduced hereinunder:- “Heard Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Saurabh Tripathi, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of the parties, present Writ Petition is taken to be leading petition and accordingly all the matters stand connected to this petition. This petition is to be finally disposed of on the next date fixed. Let this matter be listed on 24th February, 2025 with this understanding that parties shall not be seeking adjournment and it will be finally heard on the next date.” 44. It is worth noticing here that the other writ petitioners (except Writ-A No.11455 of 2024, Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others), no opportunity was afforded to either State of Uttar Pradesh or to the Commission to file counter affidavit to contest facts specific to those writ petitioners. All those petitions were just connected with Writ-A No.10825 of 2024 and counsel appearing for the Commission as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. was directed to obtain instructions. All those petitions were just connected with Writ-A No.10825 of 2024 and counsel appearing for the Commission as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. was directed to obtain instructions. However, at the time of final hearing all the learned Advocates representing the respective parties agreed that the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition being Writ-A No.11455 of 2024, may be read in respect of other writ petitions as well. Thus, following undisputed facts emerge out from the pleadings raised in the writ petitions and counter affidavit as discussed above. (i) All the petitioners admit that they got their respective application forms filled up assigning themselves in unreserved (general) category for selection in question. (ii) All the petitioners except petitioner Manish Kumar Yadav had come to know while downloading the admit card that they had filled up their application form in unreserved category. (iii) Only petitioner Raj Kumar Yadav and Ashok Kumar claimed to have applied for correction qua mistakes in the application form before written examination. Petitioner Raj Kumar Yadav filed the application bearing seal of the Commission as endorsement of receipt vide Annexure 5 to the writ petition and Ashok Kumar Yadav filed his application dated 18.10.2019. However, applications do not contain any recital to the effect that if corrections were not allowed, they would participate in written examination under protest and subject to their producing original certificate of claimed category. (iv) Petitioner Ashok Kumar mainly filled application on 03.05.2023 and 13.06.2024 much after the written examination was held in the year 2022. (v) The petitioner Nanendra Nath claimed to have filed a notarized affidavit for change of category but no such affidavit has been filed. (vi) Respondent Commission has taken a consistent stand that after the documents got uploaded and fee stood deposited no correction was permissible. (vii) Petitioners themselves declared as of general category and since pleadings in the counter affidavit have to be read in all the petitions as both Sri Kushwaha and respondent Commission counsel had agreed, all the petitioners would be taken to have made declaration at the time of document verification that they belonged to general category as was done by petitioner Ashok Kumar Yadav, either in writing or by their conduct in not giving any self-declaration in writing. (viii) None of the petitioners though had come to know after downloading the admit card that he had applied in a wrong category, approached a court of law seeking a direction to the Commission to allow correction and permit him to participate in desired category. (ix) All the participants participated in the written examination in the category assigned to them in the admit card without any protest. 45. In the circumstances when there is scarcity of government employment and against each post thousands of candidates apply, it becomes a highly competitive examination/test where marks even in decimals can make difference in preparation of select list ousting hundreds of candidates from zone of selection, and candidates often get out of the race in a competition either by mistakes in filling up the forms or OMR sheets or even for silly mistakes in not uploading the requisite certificates falling within the prescribed dates or its issuance within the prescribed timeline. This is the reason why advertisement highlights those portions contained in it that relates to the final uploading of the application forms and also such instructions that are provided at the time of distribution of the OMR sheets. Every recruitment process poses challenge to complete it within the assigned timeline and if prescribed timeline is not strictly followed, people raise issues as to transparency etc. In such competitive examinations there would hardly be any scope of providing opportunity to candidates to switch over their categories for mistakes in filing up application forms and that too after written tests are over and results are declared. One must not forget that in a highly competitive examination where candidates march side by side like a race of athletes and whoever falls, falls only for his mistakes for which there cannot be any room for recovery to be readmitted to ongoing race. Once the final select list is prepared as a result of written test held, any accommodation will lead to reversal of the list and this would keep going on bringing in more and more complications and making the process of selection so much complexed that no selection process may be concluded within a scheduled time. Besides those complaints others may take the plea that they having found place in select list for everything in order but have been ousted by accommodating a candidate who has been responsible for his own mistakes. 46. Besides those complaints others may take the plea that they having found place in select list for everything in order but have been ousted by accommodating a candidate who has been responsible for his own mistakes. 46. It is true that a candidate belonging to reserved category in possession of requisite certificate, would certainly not apply in unreserved category but for the mistakes and this is how it is called innocent human error. But the question arises when to correct and how vigilant was the candidate. There is no quarrel about the principles laid down in the authorities cited before me but in my considered view a candidate has to remain vigilant enough at least to approach a court of law well within the time to get the error rectified before the merit list is prepared as nobody would stand prejudiced. After the results are declared and recommendations are made for appointment, rights get accrued to selected and empanelled candidates and such selected candidates having not been impleaded, an order directing for accommodation for those who had committed mistakes in filling up the forms and thereby permitting the alteration in selected list would not find favour even in equity. 47. There is yet another issue, any accommodation subsequently against available vacancies, would deny the chance to similarly placed other candidates who might have also been assigned wrong category for such mistake but they did approach the court for having appeared in the return test. One may say those who did not approach in time may not claim parity in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 720 . 48. If above principles are as discussed are applied to the case in hand, I find that till last i.e. at the time of document verification, petitioners participated as a general category candidates and declared themselves as such and hence now after selection had taken place and results had been declared that they have approached this Court. In all the authorities cited before me the candidates had knocked the doors of court while selection process was still on and hence on facts, the authorities cited are distinguishable and, therefore, are of no help to the petitioners. 49. In all the authorities cited before me the candidates had knocked the doors of court while selection process was still on and hence on facts, the authorities cited are distinguishable and, therefore, are of no help to the petitioners. 49. This Court sitting in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot remain oblivious of the fact situation that not only selection process has stood completed pursuant to the advertisement but even recommendations and consequential appointments have been made. Petitioners having approached the court at this juncture despite the fact that they were aware of being assigned wrong category even while they had downloaded their respective admit cards, cannot be now granted any relief. 50. Insofar as the petitioner Manish Kumar Yadav is concerned he has to be blamed only for not applying against a particular post while submitting online application form. Those candidates who downloaded the form could have very well apprised themselves that they got missed out mentioning a particular post. Had petitioner approached the court in time after the submission of application before the Commission, he could have been given sympathetic consideration. From the application brought on record, it clearly transpires that he had applied for correction of mistakes first time on 19.08.2023 after results got published and he came to know that a candidate lower to him in merits got selected for Mandi Inspector. In my considered view for reasons assigned above for denying relief to other petitioners, this petitioner also now cannot granted relief at this stage. 51. In view of the above writ petitions are held to be devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed.