Gujarat High Court
Rajendrasinh Kanaji Chauhan (Rajput) vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4848 of 2025
=====================================================
RAJENDRASINH KANAJI CHAUHAN (RAJPUT)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI WITH MS PRIYAL YATIN SHAH(8996)
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA DAVDA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Respondent(s) No.
2,3
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani with learned advocate Ms. Priyal Yatin Shah appearing for the petitioner.
2. By way of this petition, the petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
"A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition; B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondent authorities to Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined accept the candidature of the petitioner herein and further be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner at the post of conductor considering his merits, in the interest of justice; C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to hold the post vacant for the petitioner herein, in the interest of justice;
D) Any other and further relief in favour of the petitioner herein as this Hon'ble Court deems fit."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's actual name is 'Rajput Rajendrasinh Kanaji' which has remained a matter of record all throughout till the petitioner passed his H.S.C. examination, in all his examination's mark-sheets as well as School Leaving Certificate. However, at the time of entering into the College, somehow the petitioner's name was shown as 'Chauhan Rajendrasinh Kanaji'. The petitioner got admission in the College in the year 2020 and passed out the College in the year 2022 and even in the petitioner's Degree Certificate of Bachelor of Arts issued on 20.12.2022, the petitioner's Degree Certificate bears the name of 'Chauhan Rajendrasinh Kanaji'.
Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
4. Thereafter, petitioner applied for the post of Conductor issued by the respondent-Corporation and the application form was to be filled up between 07.08.2023 to 06.09.2023. The petitioner's application form was accepted along with supporting documents wherein the petitioner applied for the above post in the name of 'Rajendrasinh Kanaji Chauhan'. The aforesaid form was accepted and during the selection process though the petitioner was selected and found his name in the select list, the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground that in the application form, the petitioners surname is shown as 'Chauhan' whereas in the documents, his surname is shown as 'Rajput' and therefore in view of above discrepancy, the petitioner's candidature was cancelled. Before that on 27.03.2024, the petitioner had given an undertaking whereby he has accepted that in respect of above discrepancy in the surname, if the petitioner could not submit the necessary documents within a period of three days, he shall not object against the cancellation of candidature of the petitioner.
Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
5. Ultimately as the petitioner could not produce anything within a period of three days, his candidature was cancelled.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani appearing for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the fact that the respondents were asking about the necessary documents i.e. an application for change of surname in the Government Gazette prior to the date of application and therefore, the petitioner had to give the undertaking as asked for. However, the fact remains that the document is produced by the petitioner and the same bears the handwriting of the petitioner as fairly conceded by learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani.
7. In view of above discrepancy related to surname of the petitioner as the petitioner's candidature is cancelled, the present petition is preferred by the petitioner with the prayer which has been reproduced in the foregoing paragraphs.
Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
8. Learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani appearing for the petitioner made following submissions :-
8.1 That the petitioner comes from the lower strata of the society and though the form was filled up by the petitioner himself, the same was filled up on the basis of material available with the petitioner. According to learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, the mistake committed by the petitioner is of trivial nature and if on the basis of such mistake, if the petitioner's candidature is cancelled, the same would amount to killing the merit over a mistake of trivial nature.
8.2 According to learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, such discrepancy in the surname would not affect the case of the petitioner as the petitioner has successfully cleared the recruitment process and for such a small mistake committed by the petitioner, the respondent ought not to have cancelled the petitioner's candidature.Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined 8.3 Learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Versus State of Bihar and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2 and by relying upon paragraph Nos. 2, 3 14 and 15 of the said decision, learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani submitted that such mistake could have been said to be a mistake of trivial nature and the respondents were not justified in cancelling the petitioner's candidature, on the basis of such trivial mistake as the same had occurred on account of petitioner's social and economic background, the petitioner comes from lower strata of the society and therefore, he was not expected to be absolutely accurate and therefore, considering such background it was a mistake committed by the petitioner which could have been condoned by the respondents. Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani submitted that even as per Clause Nos. 18 and 19 of the general instructions of the advertisement, the petitioner has not concealed any facts or has provided any bogus or incorrect information and therefore on such ground, Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined the petitioner's candidature ought not to have been cancelled. Except above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani did not make any other submissions.
9. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. On perusal of record, I found that the petitioner has shown his name as 'Rajput Rajendrasinh Kanaji' all throughout till standard 12th as can be seen from various mark-sheets produced by the petitioner and it is only from 2020 onward that during graduation, the petitioner's name was shown as 'Chauhan Rajendrasinh Kanaji' in the mark-sheet and Degree Certificate. However, when the petitioner completed graduation, a Certificate of Graduation was issued to the petitioner on 20.12.2022 which also bears the name of the petitioner as 'Chauhan Rajendrasinh Kanaji'. A perusal of advertisement indicates that the petitioner was to fill up the form for the post of Conductor between 07.08.2023 to 06.09.2023. However, though the petitioner had a Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined window from 2020 to 2023, any attention to rectify such huge mistake whereby with change of surname even if the petitioner is believed to be the same person though it's hard to believe at this juncture without there being any evidence, such mistake of change of surname would ordinarily change the identity of a person and it will be hard to believe that a person with two different surname is the same person.
10. Further, even the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner also indicates his name is written as 'Rajput Rajendrasinh Kanaji'. Ordinarily, when a person goes for further admission after completing the schooling of Higher Secondary, the College would give admission on the basis of existing documents only and the College had no reason to deviate or to change the surname of the petitioner on his own. The option that was available to the petitioner was to either get the record of the College changed during the period during which the petitioner continued to study. However, it seems that the petitioner never availed that option.
Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
11. Another option that was available to the petitioner was to ensure that he undertakes a necessary procedure and gets it published in the official gazette that 'Chauhan Rajendrasinh Kanaji' and 'Rajput Rajendrasinh Kanaji' both are same person i.e. the petitioner. Upon a query from the Court, learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani has fairly stated that right from 2020 where from the first time during taking admission in College till March 2025, when the petitioner was asked to produce the originals in support of his claim that 'Chauhan' and 'Rajput' both are the surname of the petitioner only, the petitioner did not avail the second option as well by undertaking any procedure and getting a publication in the Official Gazette that both are the same person. This would indicate that the petitioner had set idle for a period of five years despite noticing that in every year in his mark-sheet during College days, the name of the petitioner was appearing in the mark-sheet as 'Chauhan Rajendrasinh Kanaji' and not as 'Rajput Rajendrasinh Kanaji'. Such Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined mistakes cannot be said to be a trivial mistake as the change of surname in the mark-sheet of College and mark-sheet of School would never make anyone believe that both the mark-sheets are of same person. It may be also a coincident that one person could study only up to standard 12th and thereafter, as another person might have studied up to College, the petitioner is taking undue advantage of another persons Graduation Certificate. However, this is only a presumption and this cannot be said to be anything which may lead to forming of any opinion about the petitioner's credential but at the same time with such kind of documents produced by the petitioner, the decision of the respondents cannot be said to be a faulty decision or erroneous decision.
12. The decision relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani in case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Versus State of Bihar and others, the discrepancy was in respect of date of birth of the petitioner. At one place, the petitioner had written the date of birth as 08.12.1997 whereas in another place it was Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined reflected as 18.12.1997. Meaning thereby that while filling up the form, at one place instead of zero, the petitioner had pressed one and therefore, the eight was turned into eighteen and difference was of ten days only, which would not affect the eligibility criteria of the petitioner and therefore the entire issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of date of birth of the petitioner and not in respect of surname of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment as stated by learned advocate Mr. Devnani and relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Devnani observed in paragraph No.3 and 10 as under :-
"3. The appellant submitted his educational certificates/mark sheet as well as his caste certificate for document verification. On 11.06.2018, the final results reflected him as having failed. The only reason was that, while in the application form uploaded online, his date of birth was shown as 08.12.1997, in the school mark sheet, his date of birth was reflected as 18.12.1997.
10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the error committed in the application form, which was uploaded is a material error or a trivial error and was the State justified in declaring the appellant as having failed on account of the same?"Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
13. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 11, 14 and 15 observed as under :-
"11. Admittedly, the appellant derived no advantage as even if either of the dates were taken, he was eligible; the error also had no bearing on the selection and the appellant himself being oblivious of the error produced the educational certificates which reflected his correct date of birth.
14. We are not impressed with the argument of the State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or mis-leading information. We say on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Even the State has not chosen to resort to any criminal action, clearly implying that even they did not consider this error as having fallen foul of the following clause in the advertisement:-
"Instructions to fill online application form are available on the website. It is recommended to all the candidates to carefully read the instructions before filling the online application form and kindly fill the appropriate response in the following tabs. In case, the information given by the candidates found wrong or misleading, the application form will get rejected and necessary criminal actions will also be taken against the candidate."
15. Recently this Bench in Divya vs. Union Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined of India & Ors., 2023:INSC:900 = 2023 (13) Scale 730, while declining relief to candidates who acquired eligibility after the date mentioned in the notification carved out a narrow exception. There, the judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors., [2016] SCC OnLine Del 6563, a case very similar to the facts of the present case, was noted. In Ajai Kumar Mishra (supra), Indira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in para 9 stated as under:-
9. It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/ or mis-representation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors."
(emphasis supplied)
14.The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would indicate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the case by taking into consideration the fact that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to mislead the authority and even if the Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined discrepancy was material, his candidature could have been cancelled after application has been processed and candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. In the instant case, the petitioner was already allowed to participate in the selection process. Even during the selection process, the petitioner did not make any endeavor to rectify that so-called error committed by the petitioner in mentioning his surname which is mentioned as 'Rajput' and 'Chauhan' in two different Certificates and overall picture indicates that till 2020, the petitioner's surname in all his educational documents was shown as 'Rajput' and from 2020 onward, all of a sudden without there being any basis for the same, the petitioner's surname seems to have been changed from 'Rajput' to 'Chauhan' which can prima-facie indicate the identity of altogether a different person and therefore, even if, there is no intention to misrepresent on the part of the petitioner, the authority was justified in processing the petitioner's application and ultimately rejecting it as the petitioner could not produce any material Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined despite sufficient time was given to the petitioner by the respondent authority. The form was filled up in the month of September, 2023 and till March, 2025 the petitioner could not spare even time to undertake the procedure and ensure that appropriate publication is published in the Government Gazette certifying that 'Chauhan Rajendrasinh Kanaji' and 'Rajput Rajendrasinh Kanaji' are one and the same person. Fact remains that till the date on which the petition is being considered i.e. today though learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Devnani has stated on instructions that the petitioner has undertaken a process to get such information published in the Official Gazette, the same is not published in the Official Gazette and therefore, even today also there is no material to indicate except averments made on oath and the application preferred by the petitioner on 29.03.2025 that 'Chauhan Rajendrasinh Kanaji' and 'Rajput Rajendrasinh Kanaji' are the same person.
15. Therefore, today the Court has no material to examine and to come to a conclusion that the Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4848/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined petitioner even if he is 'Chauhan Rajendrasinh Kanaji' or 'Rajput Rajendrasinh Kanaji' is the same person and the Court cannot direct the respondents in absence of there being any conclusive evidence in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner bears both the surnames and he is one and the same person. Accordingly, the present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:09 IST 2025