Rohit Kumar vs Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 1346 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rohit Kumar vs Union Of India on 8 February, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                          W.P. (S) No. 4083 of 2023

Rohit Kumar, aged about 23 years, S/o Dwarika Ram, r/o Bariyarbandhi, P.O.
& P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand         ...     ...     Petitioner
                                  Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, through its Principal Secretary,
    North Block, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi
2. Staff Selection Commission, through the Chairman, SSC, Block No. 12,
    CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi
3. Directorate General, CRPF (Recruitment Branch), having its office at East
    Block-07, Level-4, Sector-01, R. K. Puram, P.O. and P.S. R. K. Puram,
    New Delhi
4. Second Command (GD), Presiding Officer, 40th BM, ITBP, Ranchi.
                                                    ...     ... Respondents
                                  ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner                      : Mr. Akshansh Kishore, Advocate
                                          Mr. Pradyumna Poddar, Advocate
For the Respondents                     : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
                                          Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
                                  ---
     th
06/8 February 2024
1.    Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"A. quashing the rejection slip dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure-7) with all consequences, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Constable/GD has been rejected on the ground that the data of the matriculation certificate does not match with the online form. B. For direction upon the Respondent Authorities to allow the Petitioner to rectify the matriculation roll number in application form for the recruitment for the post of Constable/GD Examination 2022.

C. For direction upon the Respondent Authorities to allow the petitioner to participate in the further recruitment process for the post of Constable/GD Examination 2022 and give the Detailed Medical Examination (DME). D. For keeping in abeyance, the effect of the rejection slip dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure-7) and allowing the petitioner to take part in the further recruitment process during the pendency of this writ petition."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had applied for the selection process in Central Armed Police Forces for the post of Constable in terms of recruitment notice as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The process consisted of Computer Based Examination, Physical Efficient Test/Physical Standard Test, Medical Examination and Document Verification. The learned counsel submits that the application was to be submitted online. He submits that the petitioner belongs to a poor family

and therefore had to go to a Cyber Café to fill his form and an error crept in, inasmuch as, the roll number mentioned in the matriculation certificate of the petitioner which was 7224487 was wrongly mentioned as 722448 and the form was uploaded . The learned counsel submits that such inadvertent error came to light while his documents were verified by the respondents and by this time, he had already cleared the two tests, namely, Computer Based Examination and Physical Efficiency Test/Physical Standard Test, but Detailed Medical Examination was not conducted on account of detection of such error in his application form. The learned counsel has referred to the rejection slip of the candidature of the petitioner dated 28.07.2023 and submits that the only reason for rejection was that the data of matriculation certification mismatched with online form.

4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not gained anything out of such error and there is no intention to mislead the authorities. The error was purely inadvertent and therefore the petitioner deserves one chance for consideration of his candidature subject to qualification of Detailed Medical Examination which may be conducted by the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra, vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6553 and submits that in the said case also, trivial error in connection with date of birth was taken care of. He has also relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 2 and submits that in the said case also, there was an error in recording of the date of birth.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments and therefore relief as prayed be granted to the petitioner.

7. Upon a query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confirmed that the selection process conducted pursuant to the advertisement involved in the present case is already over.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer has referred to clause 8.6 of the advertisement and has submitted that a clear provision has been made in the advertisement itself that no correction or change in the application form will be permissible once the

application form is uploaded. The learned counsel has submitted that the occasion of examination/verification of the documents comes just prior to the Detailed Medical Examination in terms of clause 11.6 of the advertisement and at the right stage, the error was detected and therefore the petitioner was not subjected to Detailed Medical Examination. The learned counsel has also submitted that in view of the specific provision made in the advertisement even if the error was inadvertent, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

9. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the aforesaid judgments do not apply, inasmuch as, in the judgment reported in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 2 (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and so far as the other judgment reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6553 (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the candidate had successfully completed all the stages of the selection process and there was no such clause as clause 8.6 which is in the advertisement involved in this case and at least there is no discussion of such a clause in the said judgment.

10. The present case arises out of selection process initiated by the respondents namely- "Constable(GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) , SSF, Rifleman(GD) in Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination,2022".

11. This Court finds that clause 8.6 of the advertisement for the aforesaid selection process clearly provides that no change/correction/modification will be allowed in the application form once filed under any circumstances. Clause 8.6 of the advertisement is quoted as under: -

"8.6 Before submission of the online application, candidates must check that they have filled correct details in each field of the form. After submission of the online application form, no change/correction/modification will be allowed under any circumstances. Requests received in this regard in any form like Post, Fax, Email, by hand, etc. shall not be entertained."

12. It further appears that the documents were to be examined/verified just before the Detailed Medical Examination and at the right stage when the document of the petitioner was being examined the aforesaid error/mismatch in roll number mentioned in the matriculation certificate as compared to that mentioned in the uploaded application form was detected. No such case has

been made by the respondents that the petitioner has been benefitted in any manner but they have relied upon the clauses of the advertisement itself.

13. This Court is of the considered view that the terms and conditions of the advertisement are binding on the parties and the candidates were put to specific notice and caution in terms of aforesaid clause 8.6 of the advertisement which can neither be ignored nor be avoided. The fact that there was an error in giving the roll number in the online submission of application is not in dispute.

14. This Court is of the considered view that such error has nothing to do with the economic status or the social status of the petitioner. Apparently, the petitioner was not careful enough and/or had not verified/counter checked the entries before submitting the application form inspite of caution in terms of clause 8.6 of the advertisement involved in this case.

15. In the aforesaid circumstances and considering the terms and conditions of the advertisement even if the error committed by the petitioner was trivial, no mandamus can be issued to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the face of clause 8.6 of the advertisement.

16. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 2 (supra) is concerned, apparently the Hon'ble Supreme Court had exercised power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and no such power can be exercised by this Court.

17. So far as the judgment reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6553 (supra) is concerned, the facts of the case indicate that not only the candidature of the writ petitioner was rejected on account of error in giving the date of birth but also a disciplinary processing was sought to be initiated against the petitioner under Rule 3(3) of the examination notice for having furnished incorrect information about his actual date of birth. In that background, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was of the view that the petitioner did not derive any advantage by entering the wrong date of birth in his online form and application and observed that there is a difference between a mere inadvertent error and misrepresentation or suppression and therefore the order impugned was set-aside and while passing the order the High Court had also taken into consideration that the petitioner had successfully cleared all the stages of the examination including interview. In the present case, the error committed by the petitioner was detected in the midst of the selection process and at the right stage of verification of documents and consequently, the petitioner was not

subjected to Detailed Medical Examination and the present matter does not relate to any initiation of disciplinary proceedings arising out of such an error. It is also important to note that in the said judgment there is no such clause as clause 8.6 of the advertisement as is involved in the present case. This court is of the considered view that each advertisement of selection is governed by its own terms and conditions which can neither be modified nor can be ignored by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in absence of any compelling circumstances. A candidate like the petitioner who is all allowed to participate in the selection process after a stage by reason of his own laches by making careless mistakes, cannot claim any right to be allowed to continue to participate in the selection process. This court is not inclined to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondents to ignore the error committed by the petitioner and to accept his application form that too when the entire selection process is over.

18. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.

19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul