Gujarat High Court
Pandya Rekhaben Arunbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14641 of 2020
==========================================================
PANDYA REKHABEN ARUNBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VISHWA PATEL FOR MR GAURAV CHUDASAMA(5660) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR YUVRAJ DANI FOR JIGER K MEHTA(7548) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 18/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed for the following prayers "15(A) This petition be admitted and allowed. (B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to quash and set aside the rejection order of the application form/candidature of the present petitioner for the post of Anganwadi worker pursuant to the Advertisement No.2448 of Dt.24-08-2020 and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 and 4 to include the name of the present petitioner in the Merit list of Anganwadi Worker for the Tharad-15 Anganwadi, Tharad(M) Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined Ward No.2, Taluka : Tharad, Dist.Banaskantha and if the petitioner stood first in the merit list after that than given the appointment to the present petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Worker.
C. Your Lordships may be pleased to cancel the merit list of Anganwadi Worker of the Tharad-15 Anganwadi, Tharad(M) - Ward No.2, Taluka Tharad, Dist.Banaskantha and further pleased to direct the respondent no.3 and 4 to prepare the fresh merit list after inclusion of the name of the present petitioner.
D. Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition the respondent no.3 and 4 may be directed to keep one post of Anganwadi Worker vacant for the Anganwadi Tharad-15, Tharad (M) - Ward No.2, Taluka Tharad, Dist.Banaskantha. E. xxxxx"
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are such that the petitioner was entitled for the post of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper/Tedagar in the advertisement No.2448 on 24.8.2020 for which the online applications were invited from dated 24.8.2020 to 13.9.2020 (till 12.00 o' clock) as she was having the qualification as required for the said post and therefore she applied through online application for the Tharad Anganwadi-15, Tharad (M), Ward No.2 of Tharad Taluka under the SC category. It is stated that the petitioner was having the qualification of Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined B.A., M.A., B.ed., M.ed, DCA (computer). However, when the merit list of the candidates was published, the name of the present petitioner did not appear in the merit list and therefore the petitioner inquired about the same and she came to know that her application form/candidature was rejected on the ground that there is difference in the marks mentioned in the post-graduate degree and marks mentioned in the online application form.
3. It is further stated that she found that she has committed a genuine mistake in mentioning the marks of the M.A. second year in the online application form, and therefore she approached the respondent no.4 and informed about the alleged mistake and as she was asked to file appeal for the same before the authority, she did so on 29.9.2020 along with the application form, marksheets of post graduation and the details of rejection of the candidature/application form. However, the said appeal came to be rejected on 8.10.2020 by stating that it is the mistake of the present petitioner. It is stated that the respondent no.1 issued the rules for the appointment of the Anganwadi worker and Anganwadi helper/tedagar on 25.11.2019. It is stated that even if the respondent no.4 considers the merits of the present petitioner by not considering the M.A.degree marks, then also the merit marks of the present petitioner Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined as per the rules issued by respondent no.1 will come to 45.68 and the first candidate who has been placed in the merit list her merit marks are 33.51 and therefore there is huge difference in the merit marks and if the marks of M.A. are considered, then the merit marks as per the rules will come to 66.35. Therefore, this petition is filed.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner Ms.Patel has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioner is having higher qualification i.e. BA, MA(Hindi), B.Ed., M.Ed, and DCA (computer) whereas on the other hand, the candidate who is named first in the merit list is only having BA degree and not having master degree and therefore the petitioner should be considered first in the merit list. She submitted that due to the non-consideration of the petitioner by the respondent authority on the ground that there is mistake in filing the online form by the petitioner, the petitioner is suffering. She further submitted that the petitioner is possessing the post graduation in Master of Arts (Hindi) and therefore she has mentioned 1 st year marks as 367/500 and second year marks, she has mentioned grand total (aggregate) marks i.e. 689/1000 instead of filling up the marks of only second year i.e. 322/500. She Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined submitted that it was genuine mistake of the present petitioner and it was done due to some inadvertence and she did not want to get the benefit out of it. She further submitted that even if the M.A.degree marks of the petitioner are not considered, then also the merit marks of the present petitioner as per the rules issued by respondent no.1 will come to 45.68 marks and the first candidate who has been placed in the merit list are 33.51 marks. Even in the written representation and in the appeal before the appellate authority, the petitioner has mentioned that it was a genuine mistake in mentioning the marks of M.A. and there was no intention to mention wrong marks. She has submitted that the petitioner is having more qualification and more meritorious with more degrees at her disposal than the person who was selected at serial no.1 and therefore only because of the genuine mistake being committed by the present petitioner, her candidature cannot be rejected, at the most such marks may not be counted but in the present case, the respondent no.4 has straightaway rejected the application of the present petitioner. 4.2 She further submitted that the petitioner immediately approached the respondent no.4 and informed about the alleged mistake, and on being asked to file appeal, she filed the appeal clearly mentioning her genuine mistake, Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined however, the same was rejected and therefore the action of the respondent no.4 is arbitrary, bad and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, she has submitted that the prayers prayed for in the present petition should be considered and this petition is required to be allowed. 4.3 In support of her submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court being Special Civil Application No.5293 of 2021 dated 16.4.2024, whereby in almost similar facts, the coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the case and allowed the petition by holding that such mistakes are committed by the petitioner due to inadvertace and on merit the petitioner is eligible for selection.
5. Per contra, learned AGP for the respondents has strongly objected the petition and has submitted that the petitioner has committed serious error in mentioning the marks in the application form and as per the condition of application form, if any details filled in the form are found incorrect, then the authorities are entitled to reject the application. She has referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.3 and stated that the appeal which is filed by the present petitioner is also examined by the Committee formed under the rules and has rejected the appeal by Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined reasoned order dated 29.10.2020 on the ground of discrepancy noticed in the online application. Therefore, she has submitted that no interference is called for as the authorities have acted in accordance with the Rules and it is undisputed facts that the petitioner has mentioned wrong details in the application.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Yuvraj Dani appearing for respondent no.5 has supported the submissions made by learned AGP and further submitted that his client is selected for the post at serial no.1. As per condition, if wrong details are found at the time of physical verification, the respondent authority has right to reject the application form and as the petitioner has stated wrong facts, the respondent-authority has rightly rejected the application form of the petitioner. In the judgment which is sought to be relied on by the petitioner, there is a reference about the incorrect details of the standard 10 th and 12 th marks mentioned and it is observed that such marks have no significance, whereas in the present case, the marks of MA Part-II are wrongly mentioned, which is highest qualification of the present petitioner. He submitted that as the as the petitioner, who is highly qualified, has deliberately mentioned the wrong details in the application form, it cannot be considered bonafide mistake and therefore the petition is required to be rejected. Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined
7. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the parties. It is required to be noted that even if the marks of MA Part-II are excluded, then also the petitioner is on higher pedestal. If the total marks are considered then also as per the Rules, it will come to 66.35 and if the marks of MA degree are excluded, then as per the Rules, the marks of the petitioner will come to 45.68, which are much higher than the marks obtained by respondent no.5 i.e. 33.51. It is also noted that the petitioner is having degrees of BA., MA (Hindi), B.Ed., M.Ed., and DCA (computer). Against that, the person who is selected in the merit list has only BA degree and not having master degree. Therefore, apparently the petitioner is more meritorious. 7.1 Now, as far as the dispute that the petitioner has mentioned wrong marks of MA Part-II i.e. she has mentioned aggregate marks instead of the marks obtained in MA Part- II, if we peruse the other details in Part-I, correct records are mentioned. Even if the said marks are excluded, then also the petitioner is found more meritorious as per the advertisement of the respondent no.5.
7.2 In the judgment referred to by the petitioner being Specail civil Application No.5293 of 2021, the coordinate Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined Bench has observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under:
"7. Having appreciated clause 7.7 and the methodology insofar as the issue in the present petition is concerned, to this Court it would not appear that mentioning a wrong mark, would amount to any discrepancy since the marks scored in the said examination were completely inconsequential since the respondents were only required to verify whether the candidate had passed the examination or not. In the considered opinion of this Court, a discrepancy could be relatable to a position where, any relevant information supplied by the applicant would not match with the details as found in the original of the document. While the same would be applicable if the issue would have any ultimate bearing on the selection of the candidate, yet, in the instant case, since the alleged discrepancy is completely unrelatable to the verification in question, to this Court it would not appear that mentioning a wrong mark in the online application form could be termed as a discrepancy since as noticed hereinabove, the applicant would not be entitled to any benefit out of the same.
8. Again while the respondents no. 2 and 3 are relying upon the order passed by Commissioner, Women and Child Development dated 26.10.2020, to submit that the entire exercise of re-verification was done as per the said order, a Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined perusal of the said order only reveals that the respondents were required to take appropriate action as per Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019. While the Commissioner may have received complaints as has been attempted to be submitted by learned AGP, yet, it would not appear from a plain reading of the order that any new methodology has been laid down in the said communication. The communication only refers to the Government Resolution and requires the concerned respondents to take appropriate actions as per the Government Resolution. In the considered opinion of this Court, insofar as case of the present petitioner is concerned, if action had been taken as per the GR, then the case of the petitioner would not have been rejected on the ground of discrepancy, which may not have any bearing on the ultimate selection process. In this view of the matter, the petition requires consideration."
8. In the said judgment, the marks which were wrongly mentioned were regarding 10 th and 12 th examination and the Court has said that it has no significance. In the present case, though there is some significance of the marks which are wrongly mentioned, such mistake can be considered as genuine mistake as the petitioner has mentioned the aggregate marks of MA instead of MA Part-II and it is not so that it is mentioned with a view to get benefit out of it. The petitioner is found more meritorious, particularly, when Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined even by excluding the said marks, then also, the petitioner is securing more marks than respondent no.5 who was selected in the merit list. Further, the petitioner immediately approached the respondent authorities clearly mentioning the genuine mistake being committed by her. In such circumstances, when there is a genuine mistake committed by the petitioner in mentioning the marks and she is found more meritorious than the other candidates, even if the wrongly mentioned marks are excluded, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer of such technicalities of genuine mistake being committed at the time of mentioning the wrong marks.
9. Though normally, Court is of the view that the forms should be filled in with accurate details, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the right of the said meritorious person should not be jeopardized on the ground of such bonafide mistake and by mentioning such incorrect details, the petitioner would not get any further benefit as otherwise also, she is more meritorious in view of the more marks she has obtained and the higher educational qualification she is possessing.
10. This Court vide order dated 6.11.2020, issued notice in this petition and also observed that any Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14641/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined appointment, if any, shall be made subject to the final outcome of the petition.
11. This Court vide order dated 6.11.2020, issued notice in this petition and also observed that any appointment, if any, shall be made subject to the final outcome of the petition.
12. In view of the above, this petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed with the following directions:
12.1 The Appellate Committee headed by the respondent no.4-District Development Officer shall re-verify the marks of the present petitioner and prepare a fresh merit list and if the petitioner secures the first place in the merit list, the respondents shall give appropriate appointment to the present petitioner and the appointment of respondent no.5 shall be subject to her securing the 1 st place in the merit list.
Direct service is permitted.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:33:04 IST 2025