CWP No. 14859 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14859 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: September 16, 2010 Nirbhai Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Punjab Public Service Commission ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Ms. R.K. Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. APS Mann, Addl. A.G. Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue roll number to the petitioner and allow the petitioner to appear in Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2009 (preliminary examination) to be held on 28.09.2010. 2. In brief, the contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner, while filling the application form, filled the wrong code which is an inadvertent mistake and, therefore, the petitioner be allowed to correct the code. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced the original application form filled by the petitioner and has pointed out that the CWP No. 14859 of 2010 2 petitioner had filled wrong code in para nos. 4 and 13. 4. It is the conceded position that the petitioner filled the wrong code in para no. 4 and para no. 13 of the application form thereby indicating wrong facts. Case is the petitioner has accordingly been considered in the category indicated by the petitioner in the application form. 5. I am of the considered opinion that no relief under extra ordinary writ jurisdiction can be allowed to the petitioner for the reason that last date of filling application form was 14.07.2010. If the petitioner is allowed to correct the mistake in the application form, similarly situated other persons, who might have also filled forms incorrectly, would be deprived of the same benefit. Inequality cannot be created by way of giving relief to one person and not giving the similar offer to the other persons who have also applied for the combined competitive examination. 6. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. 16.09.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?