Delhi High Court
Naveen Kumar vs Competition Commission Of India on 23 October, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: October 23, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 9234/2017
NAVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohd. Atif & Mr. Chinmoy
Roy, Advocates with petitioner in person
Versus
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Additional
Solicitor General, with Ms.Rhea Verma,
Ms. Medha Tandon, Mr. Ajay Tandon & Mr.
Avijit Sharma, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
C.M. 37754/2017 (u/S 151 CPC)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 9234/2014 & C.M. 37753/2017 (for stay)
1. Respondent's Notice Annexure P-5, (said to have been published
on 5th October, 2017) containing list of eligible / ineligible candidates for
the written test to be held on 29th October, 2017 for various posts, is
under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant,
who is partner in Dahiya Yadav & Company. He had applied for the post
of Deputy Director (Financial Analysis) on 18th August, 2017. Petitioner
is shown to be in the list of ineligible candidates in Notice (Annexure P-
5) at Serial No. 482. He has been declared ineligible for lack of proof of
date of birth. Quashing of impugned Notice (Annexure P-5) with
direction to respondent to allow petitioner to appear in written
examination on 29th October, 2017, is sought on the premise that along
with the application form, petitioner had enclosed his age proof as well. A
copy of petitioner's application (Annexure P-2), though incomplete one,
reveals that petitioner had attached a copy of his matriculation
examination mark sheet (Annexure P-4). Petitioner's stand in the writ
petition is that respondent has acted negligently in handling petitioner's
application form and has inadvertently misplaced copy of his
matriculation certificate and so, petitioner cannot be made to suffer for
the mistake of respondent.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned Notice
(Annexure P-5) had provided that if there is any discrepancy in the
Provisional Eligible List, then it be intimated to the respondent on or
before 10th October, 2017 and petitioner vide application and email
(Annexure P-6) had intimated respondent that he had already enclosed a
copy of his matriculation mark sheet along with his application form as
proof of his date of birth. It is further submitted that in application
(Annexure P-6) petitioner had stated that if petitioner's matriculation
mark sheet is not traceable, then petitioner be permitted to send attested/
notarized copy of his mark sheet, so that he can appear in the examination
in question. Reliance is placed by petitioner's counsel upon Supreme
Court's decision in Dheerender Singh Paliwal Vs. UPSC 2016 SCC
OnLine SC 607 to submit that equity ought to overpower technicality
where human justice is at stake and so, it is submitted that it is a fit case
where petitioner ought to be permitted to appear in the written
examination for the post of Deputy Director (Financial Analysis) slated
for 29th October, 2017.
3. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on
behalf of respondent has produced petitioner's original application form
to show that in Column No.16, which is of "Educational Qualifications",
there is no whisper of petitioner's matriculation certificate and had the
petitioner attached a copy of his matriculation certificate, its reference
would have been there in the Column of "Educational Qualifications".
Learned Additional Solicitor General draws the attention of this Court to
the Advertisement (Annexure P-1) to show that it is clearly stated therein
that matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate in support of
declaration of age is to be attached and since petitioner had not attached
the said certificate, therefore, he has been declared to be ineligible. It is
pointed out that in the Advertisement (Annexure P-1), it was made clear
that if copy of essential certificates, which includes the certificate of age
proof, are not received with the application, it will be rejected and no
appeal against its rejection will be entertained.
4. To distinguish the afore-referred decision in Dheerender Singh
(Supra), learned Additional Solicitor General submits that it was a case of
in-house candidate and so, submission of essential qualification
documents was not insisted upon because record was very much available
with the UPSC. Learned Additional Solicitor General drew the attention
of this Court to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Vineet
Relhan Vs. Union Public Service Commission 2010 SCC OnLine Del 127
to submit that where essential certificates are not produced, then in such a
case, there is no justification in allowing a candidate to participate in the
examination. Reliance was also placed by learned Additional Solicitor
General upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Union Public
Service Commission Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2010 SCC Online Del 293
to submit that where there is rejection of a number of candidates due to
non submission of required documents, then grant of relief to any such
candidate, would adversely affect similarly placed candidates and the
entire examination may have to be cancelled for accommodating a
candidate, which is inappropriate. So, dismissal of their petition is
sought.
5. Upon considering the submissions advanced by both the sides and
on perusal of impugned Notice, petitioner's original application form and
the decisions cited, I find that petitioner, instead of owning his mistake,
has cunningly tried to put the blame on respondent of having misplaced
copy of his matriculation mark sheet. It is being so said because had
petitioner appended copy of matriculation mark sheet with the application
form, then its reference would have been definitely there in the
application form. Pertinently, petitioner's original application form is
silent about his matriculation mark sheet being attached. It is no doubt
true that equity takes precedence over a technicality but not in a case like
the instant one where petitioner has cleverly tried to put the blame on
respondent. The ratio of Supreme Court's decision in Dheerender Singh
Paliwal (Supra) would not apply to the instant case, as the said case was
of in service candidates and since the record was already available with
the UPSC, therefore, filing of copy of such record was found to be
inconsequential. Whereas in the instant case, proof of age was
mandatorily required to be submitted and in its absence, petitioner has
been rightly put in the category of ineligible candidates. The
Advertisement (Annexure P-1) clearly provides that if matriculation or
equivalent certificate in support of declaration of age is not received with
the application, then the said application would be rejected.
6. After having perused petitioner's application form, it becomes
clear that petitioner had not filed his age proof and so his candidature has
been rightly rejected by putting him in the list of ineligible candidates.
7. Consequently, finding no substance in this petition, it is dismissed
in limine while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
October 23, 2017
r
