Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chandaka Bala Krishna vs The Union Of India on 23 August, 2024

                                                  1

APHC010335892022
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI                                             [3310]
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

               FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                           PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

                         WRIT PETITION NO: 20177 OF 2022

Between:

Chandaka Bala Krishna and Others                                               ...PETITIONER(S)

                                               AND

The Union Of India and Others                                               ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

  1. TURAGA SAI SURYA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

  1. P VIJAYA KUMARI(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India "to to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in cancelling/ reje rejecting petitioners candidature to the post of Navic (General Duty) on flimsy and irrelevant grounds as highly illegal, arbitrary, exercise of power, violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to accep accept their candidature and process further for appointment to the post of Navic (General Duty) on par with the other candidates as per Notification 02/2022 Batch and to pass such other and further orders".

2. Heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.

T. Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.Vijaya Kumari,

learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the 3rd

respondent has issued Notification inviting applications to the post of Navic

(General Duty), Navic (Domestic Branch) and Yantrik posts by prescribing the

educational qualifications and other requires. The petitioners have appeared

for examination and succeeded and also appeared for physical fitness test as

scheduled by the 4th respondent. The petitioners have succeeded in Stage-1

and 2 test and the certificates produced by them were scrutinized by the

concerned authorities. While the matter stood thus, the petitioners have

received a communication through mail on 05.07.2022 stating that their

candidature is cancelled/ rejected due to document deficiency as per Para-

6(b) (ii) of the Advertisement and Para-14 Note of Appendix-A of E-Admit

Card. There is discrepancy in the father name and also percentage of marks,

but name of the father of the petitioners are correct and the particulars

submitted by the petitioners are correct. The petitioners documents were

scrutinized at the time of Stage-II and allowed them for physical fitness test,

since all the documents produced by them are match with the documents

uploaded while submitting the online application. But, the respondents

rejected the candidature of the petitioners unilaterally at last stage, which is

highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition came to be filed.

4. Per contra, the respondents filed counter-affidavit denying all material

averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that on qualifying

the written examination, the petitioners were issued with E-Admit Card for

Stage-II and appeared for Physical Fitness Test at respective allocated PFT

centres followed by physical document verification. However, during the

document verification stage, the petitioners were declared 'provisionally pass'

by the recruitment board of the Stage-II examination. However, since the

document verification is carried out at multiple stages of the recruitment

process, during the scrutiny of the documents before preparation of the final

merit, discrepancy in the documents of the petitioners were found and they

were declared 'fail' by the Board at Coast Guard Headquarters, New Delhi.

The petitioners should have corrected their father's name in the certificates

prior to filing of the online application. The father name of candidate in the E-

Admit Card and application is not tallied and mismatch. Further the 5th

petitioner candidature has been rejected due to mismatch of date of issue of

12th Class Marks sheet, which is against the guidelines issued by the

respondents. It is further contended that despite issuing several instructions to

the petitioners for filing online application through advertisement and

instructions mentioned in the online application, the petitioners made a

mistake and their negligence while filing the online application has led to the

cancellation of their candidature. Further, the fact that the candidates who

have filled online application correctly with due diligence cannot be overseen.

Hence the petitioners are entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition and

requested to dismiss the same.

5. Perused the record.

6. During hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners placed on

record the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi at

New Delhi in "Chape Prajwal Laxman Rao v. Union of India and Others"1,

wherein it was held as follows:-

"11. We are of the view that on account of an inadvertent error, petitioner should not suffer, when petitioner is otherwise meritorious. Further, in view of the fact that the original documents produced by the petitioner have also been verified and the marks obtained in class X and class XII tally with the marks filled up by the petitioner in his application form and the only error is with regard to entering an incorrect number for the class X marksheet. The error has also been explained by the petitioner and the number tallies with the second class XII marksheet issued to the petitioner by the Board.

12. In view of the above, we are of the view that the rejection of the petitioner from further participation in the selection process is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Respondents shall permit the petitioner to participate in the Stage III process and onwards for 02/2023 batch. For completion of record, it may be noticed that the annual recruitment process is done in two batches i.e 01 of that year and 02 batch of the year. The process for 01 batch is already complete and training is already underway. As such, petitioner is permitted to participate in Stage III onwards of 02 batch of the year 2023."

7. So also, a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of

Delhi at New Delhi in "Ahire Ajinkya Shankar v. Indian Coast Guard and

Others"2, wherein it was held as follows:-

W.P(C) 9452/2023 & CM APPL.36067/2023, dated 09.08.2023

W.P(C) 11857/2023 & CM APPL.46289/2023, dated 14.09.2023

"11. We have seen the 'caste certificate' issued by the concerned authority on 29.08.2009 which records his name as 'Ahire Ajinkya' and his father's name as 'Shankar Ahire'. The petitioner also obtained a certificate of validity of such caste certificate on 04.12.2018 in which it was certified that the said caste claim was correct though in such 'certificate of validity' his name is shown as 'Ahire Ajinkya Shankar' and not 'Ahire Ajinkya'.

12. According to petitioner, his full name is 'Ahire Ajinkya Shankar' and his father's full name is 'Shankar Ahire' and, therefore, there was no reason for the respondents to have rejected his candidature on the ground of alleged mismatch. He also claims that the concerned office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sillod, Maharashtra further verified the correctness of said certificate on 22.08.2023 certifying therein that such caste certificate was issued to Ahire Ajinkya son of Shankar. According to the petitioner, he did not provide any false information and rather uploaded all the supporting documents. He has also claimed that his educational certificates of Class X and XII record his name as 'Ahire Ajinkya Shankar' and since there was no column prescribed for specifying father's name, it contained the name of his mother as'Kadubai'.

....

16. Reference may be had to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP (C) 7207/2023 titled Pankaj vs. Union of India dated 24.05.2023 and Amandeep vs. Union of India and Others: 2023 SCC Online Del 3902 wherein, in similar circumstances, this Court had permitted the petitioners therein to be allowed to join the induction course in the next batch subject to completion of all necessary formalities as per the procedure and further directed that their seniority shall be treated with their batchmates, with all consequential benefits except salary."

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would categorically

submitted that the above decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of this

case and hence requested to pass similar order in this writ petition also.

Learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents vehemently

opposed to allow the writ petition.

9. No doubt, in the instant case surname, qualification, date of birth and

also percentage of marks are mismatch according to the respondents. The

Division Bench of High Court of Delhi had categorically answered in point wise

and the issue involved in this writ petition is also squarely covered.

10. Taking into consideration of the discussion made by the Hon'ble

Division Bench in its decisions cited supra, this Court has no hesitation to

allow the writ petition, while directing the respondents to accept the