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
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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
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.
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
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
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?"
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
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
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
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
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
