Kerala High Court

Ajay Krishnan vs Union Of India on 4 January, 2021

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

     MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.13433 OF 2020(D)


PETITIONER:

               AJAY KRISHNAN
               AGED 20 YEARS
               S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, MANAKKAL VEEDU, ARINALLOOR SOUTH
               (PO), THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM-690538.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
               SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ

RESPONDENTS:

      1        UNION OF INDIA
               REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
               NORTH BLOCK, CHANAKYAPURI, NEW DELHI-110001.

      2        THE DIG (RECRUITMENT),
               DIRECTORATE GENERAL, CRPF (RECRUITMENT BENCH),
               EAST BLOCK-07, LEVEL-4, SECTOR-01, R K PURAM,
               NEW DELHI-110066.

      3        THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION,
               REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY (GENERAL),
               KARNATAKA-KERALA REGION (KER), 1ST FLOOR, E WING,
               KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034.

      4        THE PRESIDING OFFICER/COMMANDANT,
               DV/DME PHASE, CT/GD (MALE/FEMALE), RECRUITMENT 2018,
               GC CRPF, PALLIPURAM CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               KERALA-695316.

               R1-4 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).13460/2020(F), THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

                                     2


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

     MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.13460 OF 2020(F)


PETITIONER:

               GOKUL V. NATH
               AGED 23 YEARS
               S/O.VIJAYANATHAKURUP, GOKULAM, 306, KOMALOOR P.O.,
               CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690505.

               BY ADV. SMT.V.VIJITHA

RESPONDENTS:

       1       UNION OF INDIA
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
               JAI SING MARG, HANUMAN ROAD AREA, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
               NEW DELHI-110001.

       2       DIRECTORATE GENERAL,
               CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK-07,
               LEVEL-4, SECTOR-01, RK PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066,
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

       3       STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION,
               BLOCK NO.12, CGO-COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
               NEW DELHI-110003.

       4       PRESIDING OFFICER,
               DV/DME PHASE, PALLIPURAM CENTRE,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695316.

               R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).13433/2020(D), THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

                                  3




                              JUDGMENT

The prayers in these writ petitions are with regard to

rejection of candidature for the post notified by the 3 rd respondent

on 21.7.2018. In W.P.(C) No.13433/2020, Ext.P3 is the notification.

It is submitted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13433/2020 had

submitted Ext.P4 application pursuant to the notification. It is

stated that by an inadvertent mistake, the gender of the petitioner

was wrongly shown as 'female' in the application. The petitioner

was called for a written examination, the admit card of which is

produced as Ext.P5. Thereafter, a call letter for a physical

standard and efficiency test was also received by the petitioner,

who participated in the said test. Ext.P6 is the report of the test.

It was only at this stage that the petitioner became aware of the

mistake in the application. Ext.P7 representation, therefore, was

filed before the 3rd respondent. However, the petitioner's

candidature was rejected on the ground of mistaken gender in the

application.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

mistake in the application was a result of an inadvertent omission

which occurred in the Akshaya Centre when the application was WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

uploaded and that the petitioner, who is otherwise fully eligible for

participating in the selection, cannot be denied a chance to do so

only on account of an inadvertent and insignificant error. A

decision of the High Court of Rajasthan is produced as Ext.P9 and

relied on by the petitioner. It is submitted that though Ext.P10

judgment was rendered directing a consideration of the issue in the

light of Ext.P9 judgment, by Ext.P11 order, the claim of the

petitioner has been rejected without considering any of the

relevant facts. It was found that the notification was categoric that

no corrections would be permitted after the submission. It is

stated that the notices uploaded in the website had also specifically

declared that requests for change of any data filled wrongly by the

candidate in their online application forms like category, gender,

domicile state/district, etc. shall not be entertained by the

Commission. It is further stated in Ext.P11 that recruitment is

made separately for 'male' and 'female' candidates and cut off

marks and criteria are decided separately. It is stated that the

change of data including that of gender at any stage of the

recruitment would disrupt the normal recruitment process and

cause serious administrative problems.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

issue has been decided in several cases and the High Court of Delhi

had permitted the correction even in the date of birth where the

mistake was purely involuntary and no advantage was derived from

the same. A decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and

others v. Dinesh Kumar [2008 (1) KHC 715] is relied on to

contend that the understanding of facts by a layman has to be

considered by the court while deciding their conduct and highly

technical interpretation should be avoided. It is, therefore,

contended that the slight error is liable to be overlooked and the

petitioner is to be included in the selection process which is

ongoing.

4. In W.P.(C) No.13460 of 2020 also, the petitioner was an

applicant pursuant to the notification dated 21.7.2018. In the said

case, he had wrongly entered the domicile district. It is submitted

that the petitioner is a native of Mavelikkara in Alappuzha District.

But, he had wrongly shown his domicile district as Pathanamthitta

because he was born in Panthalam. It is submitted that the

candidature was rejected by Ext.P9. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged 23 years and that an

insignificant error in the filling up of his domicile district, which

has no impact on the selection, should not be relied upon to deny WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

the benefits to the petitioner.

5. In W.P.(C) No.13460/2020, a counter affidavit has been

placed on record by the respondents. It is submitted that the

candidates had been specifically notified of the caution necessary

in filling the online application forms and it was specified that any

mistake in providing information about the domicile State and

District would result in the rejection of the candidature summarily.

It is contended that there are a large number of applicants to the

post notified on 21.7.2018 and that the extension of any relaxation

in respect of mistakes in application forms to the petitioners will

result in derailing the entire selection process. It is contended that

in view of the specific caution raised in the notification itself, the

petitioners, who are aspirants for uniform post in the Armed

Services ought to have been careful in the filling of their

application forms. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on

a decision of the High Court of Bombay in Rajesh Sominath

Nilakha v. The Union of India and others [W.P.(C) No.4761 of

2020] to contend that orders of disqualification on the ground of

wrong mentioning of domicile district had been set aside by a

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and the petitioner's

application was directed to be considered in identical WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

circumstances.

6. I have considered the contentions advanced on either

side. The petitioners contend that their candidature is being

rejected on highly technical grounds relying on insignificant errors

which have occurred in the filling up of the applications. The

learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents,

on the other hand, contends that the selection is conducted for a

large number of posts and there are several applicants from all

over the country for the same. It is contended that the admitted

mistakes in the applications, however minor, would result in the

candidature being forfeited. It is stated that this aspect was

specifically mentioned in the notification itself, the full text of

which has been made available by the learned Assistant Solicitor

General for a perusal before this Court.

7. It is not in dispute before me that the petitioner in W.P.

application form. A reading of Ext.P3 notification would show that

there were no fees prescribed for the application, if the candidate

is a woman or one belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe

or Ex-Servicemen. Clause 7(i) states that Rs.100/- would be

payable as fee for the application. Clause 7(iv) states that WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

applications received without the prescribed fees shall not be

considered and shall be summarily rejected. No representation

against such rejection will be entertained. Ext.P4 is the application

admittedly submitted by the petitioner. It would show that not only

was a gender shown as 'female', but the application was submitted

without any fee since the fee was shown as exempted in Ext.P4.

8. The Apex Court in T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu and

another [(2008) 9 SCC 403] has specifically considered the

rejection of an application at the interview stage. It was held that a

defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible

might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may

be called for interview and may get a chance to take part of the

selection process. However, it was held that, that does not mean

that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later

stage once the defect in the application comes to light. It was held

that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in permitting the

petitioner to participate in the selection process.

9. In W.P.(C) No.13433/2020, it is not in dispute before me

that the application was submitted with the gender shown as

'female'. The contention of the petitioner is that there would be no

difference in the process even if there is a mistake in the gender in WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

the application. However, I find that the said submission has to fail

in the initial scrutiny itself. The application, if submitted as a

'male' candidate, was liable to be accompanied by a fee of Rs.100/-.

Ext.P4 would show that no such fee had been paid as the

petitioner's application was submitted as a 'female' candidate with

an exemption in the fee. If that be so, the later correction of the

gender by itself would not cure the defect since the application

would be defective as one submitted without payment of fees.

10. This Court, in a series of decisions, had held time and

again that the defects in applications, however insignificant they

may appear, cannot be permitted to be corrected during the course

of the selection since laxity in one case will leave open the

floodgate of request to condone irregularities or omissions. It was

held that cases of mistakes in applications cannot be decided on

sympathies or by extending any other extenuating considerations.

The decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Rangaswamy

v. Kerala Public Service Commission [1982 KLT 574] and

Susheela v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2010 (4) KLT

986] and of learned Single Judges of this Court in Binimil K. G. v.

PSC [1997 KHC 262], Asha Manju K. M. v. KPSC, Rep. By its

Secretary and Another [2010 KHC 104], Shaiji Cherukkattil v. WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

The Kerala Public Service Commission and another [2010 (4)

KHC 805] and Neena N. K. v. The Kerala Public Service

Commission and another [2010 (1) KLT 258] are but a few of the

decisions on the point. I find that all the contentions of the

petitioners including the judgment referred to in Ext.P9 has been

specifically considered while passing Ext.P11 order. For the above

reasons, I am of the opinion that the contentions of the petitioner

cannot be accepted.

11. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.

Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Rajesh Sominath

Nilakha v. The Union of India and others [W.P. No.4761 of

2020]. It is contended that for the same mistake of wrongly

mentioning the domicile district, the Bombay High Court had set

aside the order disqualifying the petitioner and had directed the

consideration of his application. In the light of the binding

decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court, I am of the opinion

that the claim of the petitioners for acceptance of their candidature

cannot be accepted. However, since the selection is a nation wide

exercise, the respondents obviously cannot adopt different

standards in different states. In the circumstances, I make it clear WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

that in case the candidature of any candidate who had committed

the same error is being considered in the selection process, the

case of the petitioners shall also be considered.

The writ petitions are ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/21.12.2020 WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13433/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE DATED 27.4.2016 FOR THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED DURING MARCH 2016.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 20.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 21.7.2018 ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.9.2018 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ADMISSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 5.9.2019 REGARDING THE PETITIONER'S PHYSICAL STANDARD TEST CONDUCTED ON 5.9.2019.

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CORRECTION OF HIS GENDER.

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE REJECTION SLIP DATED 9.1.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27.8.2018 PASSED IN SB CIVIL WRIT NO.12782/2019 BY HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN.

EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13.2.2020 PASSED IN WPC NO.3469/2020.

EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.3.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL WP(C).Nos.13433 & 13460 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13460/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT 0UT OF APPLICATION DATED 01.09.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF E-ADMISSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CANDIDATE COPY OF THE TEST RESULT OF THE PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST FOR THE POST OF CONSTABLE (GD) IN CAPFS, NIA, SSF AND RIFLEMAN(GD) IN ASSAM RIFLES EXAMINATION 2018.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE E-AUDIT CARD FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NATIVITY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DOMICILE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COMMUNICATION OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COMMUNICATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2020 JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2020 IN WPC NO.4122/2020.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE ORDER NO.C.210001/13/2019-ESTT DATED 24.06.2020.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL