Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court comprising Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand while dealing with the issue as to whether the candidature of the respondent can be rejected by the Department of Railways on the ground of human error/bonafide mistake alone, because the date of the Postal Order was wrongly mentioned by him in the application, despite the fact that Postal Order was issued within the period of limitation held that whenever there is a conflict between substantial justice and hyper-technicality, substantial justice should be preferred to avoid the defeat for the ends of justice.
Background :
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,against the order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein Union of India has been directed to give appointment to the respondent on the post of Group-D with all consequential benefits and the said exercise was to be carried out within three months.
Brief facts of the case are that North Western Railway Recruitment Cell issued an advertisement on16.12.2010 by which the applications for recruitment on several posts of Group ‘D’ i.e. Track Man, Traffic Khalasi, Helper, Cleaner, Cook etc. were invited, in pursuance of the said advertisement, the respondent submitted an application under the category of Other Backward Class (OBC). After participation in the process for selection, he qualified in the written examination and appeared in the physical eligibility test. Afterwards, he qualified the medical test and was found fit but later on his candidature was rejected. Aggrieved by this decision he filed an Application before the Tribunal pleading therein that the Postal Order submitted by him was well within the parameters and the amount of said Postal
Order was received by the Railway Department and the same was also credited in its account but inadvertently, in the application form, the wrong year of Postal Order was mentioned. He prayed before the court that his candidature has been wrongly rejected on hyper- technical grounds.
On the contrary, the Union of India said that candidate was ineligible to get appointment and his candidature was rightly rejected by the authorities.
Submissions made by Counsel:
Counsels for the Petitioner argued that the respondent is not entitled to get appointment.The respondent has mentioned the details of the Postal Order issued on 20.01.2010 in his application form and as per Sub-para (XV) of Para 8.11 of the Advertisement, the application form of the respondent was liable to be rejected on the ground of furnishing incorrect information by him.
Counsel argued that it is clearly mentioned that the Postal Order/Bank Drafts/Pay Order for payment of requisite fee issued prior to the date of advertisement or beyond the validity of six months, will not be accepted. Thus, in view of
the conditions mentioned in Para Nos.7.4 and 8.11 of the Advertisement, the candidature of the respondent was rightly rejected and the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the amount of Postal Order was accepted by the petitioner-Department and the same was credited in its account and after accepting the same, the respondent was allowed to participate in the selection process. Thereafter, he was qualified in the written test, physical efficiency test and the medical test. Lastly, counsel argued that the mistake committed by the respondent has not caused any prejudice to any third party. Thus, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in allowing the application filed by the respondent.
Observation of the Court:
Court directed the petitioners-Department to give appointment to him on the post of Group-D with all consequential benefits.
Court took into the consideration the issue as to whether the candidature of the respondent can be rejected by the Department of Railways on the ground of human error/bona fide mistake only because the date of the Postal Order was wrongly mentioned by him in the application despite the fact that Postal Order was issued within the period of limitation. But by a human error, the respondent mentioned the wrong date of the postal Order as 10.01.2010 instead of the correct date i.e. 10.01.2011?
Court noticed that since the candidate took part in entire selection process and cleared the written test, physical efficiency test and medical test and finally he was
found fit but his candidature was rejected by the Department vide order dated 29.07.2013 mainly for the reason that the postal order submitted by him was not within limitation.
“To err is human, to forgive is divine”, the mistake can be of two kinds. First kind of mistake would not be where nobody is affected by a mistake and the second mistake where a third party is affected by a mistake. The difference in two mistakes would be that whereas the rectification of the first mistake would cause no prejudice, rectification of the second would cause prejudice", said the court.
For giving the decision the court relied on the case of “Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Registrar, the court upheld the decision of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.
Court found that after accepting the application from of the respondent, the
the amount of Postal Order enclosed with the application form was accepted by the petitioner-Department which was credited by the petitioner-Department. And on the basis thereof, respondent was allowed to participate in the entire recruitment process, it is not a case where the petitioner is either claiming any change of category or seeking any benefit of reservation to defeat the right of any person.
Atlast, the Court held that,
"The petitioner-Department was directed to give appointment to the respondent on the post of Group-D with all consequential benefits, if he is otherwise found suitable for the said post, except monetary benefits. The said exercise shall be carried out by the petitioner within a period of three months."
Accordingly, the Petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Union Of India & Anr. v. Harendra Gawaria
Picture Source :
