IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16867 of 2010 MAHESH PRASAD, SON OF LATE VISHWANATH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- MITHAPUR, P.S.- JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA:--PETITIONER . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENTOF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE WOMEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, 2ND FLOOR, INDIRA BHAWAN, R.C.SINGH PATH, , PATNA. 5. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, WOMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BIHAR 2ND FLOOR, INDIRA BHAWAN, R.C.SINGH, PATH, PATNA :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate. For the Corporation : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.B.N.Singh, A.C. to S.C.-17. ====== 2. 05.10.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for the Women Development Corporation, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”). 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of District Project Manager in the Corporation pursuant to Job Contract Notice- 01/10, Annexure-1. His candidature has been rejected on the ground of misrepresentation under orders dated 13.08.2010, Annexure-6, perusal whereof indicates that petitioner applied for the post of District Project Manager as a B.C.-I category candidate but along with the application-form he enclosed the caste- certificate of B.C.-II category and having noticed - 2 - such misrepresentation his candidature has been rejected under the impugned order dated 13.08.2010, Annexure-6. 3. Counsel for the petitioner assails the order dated 13.08.2010, Annexure-6 on the ground that no sooner petitioner realized his mistake made in the application-form he filed representation dated 28.07.2010, Annexure-5 for correcting the mistake in the application form on the date the result of the written examination was published but the authorities of the Corporation without entertaining the representation dated 28.07.2010, Annexure-5 proceeded to reject his candidature under the impugned order. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that had the authorities of the Corporation permitted the petitioner to correct the mistake in the application-form, occasion to reject his candidature may not have arisen at all and this Court should direct the authorities of the Corporation to permit the petitioner to correct the mistake in the application-form. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner, State and the Corporation, I am unable to entertain such request in view of the fact that if petitioner is allowed to correct the mistake in the application- - 3 - form, such opportunity will have to be allowed to others, whose application-form may have been rejected on the ground of mistake committed by those candidates. It appears, in appreciation of the aforesaid fact the Managing Director of the Corporation instead of entertaining the representation dated 28.07.2010, Annexure-5 proceeded to reject the candidature of the petitioner under the impugned order. I do not see any illegality in the said order and the writ petition is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)