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)
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
