Orissa High Court
Rupali Badapanda vs Director General Of on 20 February, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023
In the matter of an Application under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
Rupali Badapanda
Aged about 21 years
Daughter of Rajanikanta Badapanda
At: Ekadalia, P.O.: Siko, P.S.: Jankia
District: Khordha. ... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. Director General of
Central Reserve Police Force
At/P.O.: New Delhi.
2. Deputy Inspector General, GC
Central Reserve Police Force
Bhubaneswar
At: Central Reserve Police Square
Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha. ... Opposite parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : M/s. Laxmikanta Mohanty,
Rasmita Das and Sumanta Das,
Advocates
For the Opposite parties : Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi,
Deputy Solicitor General of India
for High Court of Orissa
along with
Mr. Deepak Gochhayat,
Central Government Counsel
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 05.12.2024 :: Date of Judgment : 20.02.2025
J UDGMENT
Questioning the propriety of rejection of candidature
vide Rejection Slip dated 21.07.2023 issued/passed by
the opposite party No.2-Presiding Officer, DV/DME,
CT/GD-2022, Board No.1 on the ground of mismatch in
the Application Form and the Original High School
Certificate Examination issued by the Board of
Secondary Education, the petitioner has knocked the
doors of this Court by way of this writ petition craving to
invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, with the following
prayer(s):
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may
graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. Parties
calling upon them to file show cause as to why a direction
shall not be issued to quash the order of rejection dated
21.07.2023 issued by the opposite party No.2 on the plea
of mismatching in High School Certificate between
Application Form and Original High School Certificate
taking into consideration her successful in written test as
well as physical test as well as the judgment of Hon‟ble
Apex Court of India rendered in between Union of India
Versus Pritilata Nanda reported in AIR 2010 SC 2821.
And after hearing the parties be pleased to quash/set
aside the order of rejection dated 21.07.2023 under
Annexure-6 issued by the opposite party No.2.
A further direction be issued to the opposite party No.2 to
allow the petitioner to appear in the Medical Test which
shall continue till 10.08.2023 and if the petitioner found
fit, she may be issued order of appointment.
And pass such other order/orders granting complete relief
to the petitioner.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty
bound ever pray."
Facts:
2. Facts, as adumbrated by the writ petitioner, reveal that
an advertisement was issued by the Staff Selection
Commission on 27.10.2022 for recruitment to the post
of Constable in different Central Armed Police Force
including the post of Constable of Central Reserve Police
Force. Responding to said advertisement, the petitioner
made application through online on 14.11.2022. At the
time of submission of online application, the Roll
Number of the petitioner mentioned in the High School
Certificate Examination has been erroneously typed as
"18302BB0006" instead of "302BB0024".
2.1. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued e-Admission
Certificate for "Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police
Forces (CAPFs), SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and
Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination, 2022"
by the Staff Selection Commission. On being successful
in the written test, the petitioner was allowed to appear
in Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency
Test (PET) for Constable (General Duty) in CAPFs. Being
found qualified in the said test(s), she was issued with e-
Admit Card for Detailed Medical Examination fixing date
of medical test on 21.07.2023 at 6.00am.
2.2. Before medical examination, the testimonials of the
petitioner was verified by the Office. The petitioner
submitted all the original documents evidencing her
academic qualification(s). On such verification, it was
pointed out that the Roll Number given by the petitioner
in the Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary
Education, Odisha does not tally with the Roll Number
uploaded in the online Application Form. Accordingly, by
issue of Rejection Slip dated 21.07.2023 the candidature
of the petitioner was rejected.
2.3. On receipt of the Rejection Slip dated 21.07.2023
(Annexure-6), the petitioner filed representation
(Annexure-7) before the authority concerned on
24.07.2023 with a request to allow her for correction of
mistake in feeding the Roll Number in the online
Application Form. The petitioner in her representation
explained as follows:
"***
The humble submission is as follows: The applicant
Rupali Badapanda, Daughter of Rajnikanta Badapanda
is a resident of Ekadia, P.O.: Siko, District: Khordha,
Odisha, 752038. The application of the applicant is as
follows that the applicant had applied for the post of SSC
GD released on 14.11.2022. At the time of application,
due to the mistake of the shop owner, the roll
number of the applicant's tenth class has been
typed mistakenly 18302BB0006 instead of
302BB0024, while in reality the roll number of the
applicant is 302BB0024. Due to incorrect Roll Number,
the applicant was caught with a rejection slip by 2 I/C
Enjirkan Kindo of 19BN. When the applicant pleaded to
appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, the applicant was
refused to accept the application by 2 I/C Enjirkan Kindo,
who is currently the Presiding Officer of DV/DME at GC
CRPF BBSR.
It is a humble request to the Respected sir kindly examine
the original document of the applicant keeping in mind the
above things and provide an opportunity to do correction
roll no and medical treatment again. The applicant will
always be grateful to you."
2.4. Since the aforesaid representation of the petitioner vide
Annexure-7 was not considered by the opposite parties,
the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging
the rejection of her application vide Rejection Slip dated
21.07.2023 (Annexure-6).
Counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties:
3. It has been admitted that,
"On being successfully qualified in Computer Based
Examination as well as Physical Efficiency Test/Physical
Standard Test, the petitioner was called for document
verification/detailed medical examination which was
conducted at Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar with
effect from 17.07.2023 to 02.08.2023. The petitioner
appeared before the DV/ DME, Board No.1 on 21.07.2023
at Group Centre, Bhubaneswar and her candidature was
rejected as her Roll Number (302BB0024) mentioned in
Matriculation Certificate issued from Board of Secondary
Education, Odisha was found different than the online
application. Thus, as per guidelines issued by the DIG
(Recruitment), Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi letter
No.A.VI-- 1/2022-Rectt-- (SSB) CT/GD-2022 dated
12.06.2023, the petitioner was issued rejection slip on the
same day, i.e., 21.07.2023 due to mismatch of her Roll
Number."
3.1. Refuting the contention of the petitioner, it is affirmed
that the candidates must ensure that they have filled up
correct details in each field of the Application Form
before submission of final online application and after
submission of final online application, no change/
correction/modification is allowed under any
circumstances.
3.2. It has further been asserted by the opposite parties that,
as per Guidelines contained in paragraph 7.2 of DIG
(Rectt), Directorate General, CRPF Letter No.A.VI-l/
2022-Rectt-(SSB) CT/GD-2022 dated 12.06.2023, when
scrutiny of documents was undertaken during DV/DME,
if any claim made in the application is not found
substantiated, the candidature would be cancelled
straightaway by the Presiding Officer and a photocopy of
the check list shall be provided to the candidate by
endorsing proper remarks/reasons of rejection.
3.3. During document verification of the petitioner by the
Recruitment Board, it was noticed that the Roll Number
(302BB0024) mentioned in the Certificate issued by the
Board of Secondary Education, Odisha mismatched with
the online application submitted by the petitioner.
Hearing:
4. Pleadings, being completed and exchanged between the
counsel for respective parties, on their consent, this
matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of
admission.
4.1. Accordingly, heard Sri Laxmikanta Mohanty, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Prasanna
Kumar Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
along with Sri Deepak Gochhayat, learned Central
Government Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
4.2. On conclusion of hearing, the matter stood reserved for
preparation and pronouncement of Judgment.
Rival contentions and submissions:
5. Reiterating the facts as narrated in the writ petition, Sri
Laxmikanta Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that mere error in specifying the
Roll Number assigned in the High School Certificate
Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, as
"18302BB0006" in place of "302BB0024", could not lead
to indicate that the High School Certificate Examination
issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha is
disputed. The opposite parties have never disputed said
certificate and denied the petitioner to have produced
wrong certificate. It is only mismatch in the feeding of
the Roll Number in the online Application Form. Such
trivial mistake being innocuous particularly when the
Original Certificate is not disputed, the candidature of
the petitioner should not have been rejected.
5.1. He vehemently contended that the candidate has
qualified in every test including the written test, PST/
PET and is eligible for being considered for the post of
Constable (General Duty) in CAPFs. Having declared so
qualified in the tests conducted by the Staff Selection
Commission, the petitioner ought to have been allowed
to correct the typographical error and the opposite
parties should not have denied her employment. Rather
the opposite parties could have ignored such error.
5.2. Heavy reliance has been placed on Union of India Vrs.
Miss Pritilata Nanda, (2010) 8 SCR 733 = AIR 2010 SC
2821 to suggest that once the petitioner's application
was accepted by the authorities and she was allowed to
appear in the written and other tests and after her name
could find mentioned in the merit list, it was no longer
open to the authorities concerned to raise any question
relating to petitioner's application for the purpose of dis-
entitling her from the benefit of issuing her with an
appointment letter. Rejection of Application Form on
flimsy ground is to be construed to be a gross abuse of
the power. Callous attitude of the authorities are writ
large in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite
parties. It is indeed unfortunate that a female candidate
of remote pocket of the State who applied for a post has
been denied appointment on mere typographical error
crept in while feeding on to the online Application Form.
The Union of India, supposed to be an ideal and model
employer, is required show more pragmatic than
adopting pedantic approach.
6. Sri Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India referring to Guidelines dated
12.06.2023 of the Directorate General, CRPF laid stress
on the following paragraph thereof:
"7.2. When scrutiny of document is undertaken during
DV/DME, if any claim made in the application is not
found substantiated, the candidature will be
cancelled straightaway by Presiding Officer and a
photocopy of cheek list by endorsing proper
remarks/reasons of rejection be provided duly
signed by Presiding Officer to the candidate.
Documents produced by the candidate may be kept
in the dossier for future reference.
In case of mismatch in name, father/mother name,
gender, DOB and domicile district, the candidature
will be rejected and candidate will not be allowed to
participate in further stage, i.e., DME."
6.1. Having emphasised on said clause of the Guidelines, it is
submitted that there is justification in rejecting the
candidature of the petitioner, inasmuch as it is admitted
fact that she has furnished wrong information while
filling up the online Application Form.
Analysis and discussions:
7. The undisputed factual matrix would depict that,
i. The petitioner-candidate was found successful not
only in written test but also qualified in PST/PET.
ii. The candidate has furnished the Original
Certificate issued by the Board of Second
Education indicating that the petitioner has passed
the High School Certificate Examination.
iii. Said certificate evidencing that the petitioner
passed Matriculation is admitted.
iii. In the Guidelines dated 12.06.2023, on which
reliance has been placed by the opposite parties, it
has been stipulated that,
"7.3. During the process of documents verification
and before permitting the candidates for DME,
following documents will be checked carefully;
7.3.1. Matriculation Certificate:
Must have passed Matriculation and the result
of qualifying examination must be declared on
or before 01.01.2023.
Date of Birth on the Matriculation Certificate
should be same as filled by the candidate in
his/her online Application failing which
candidature will be cancelled (DoB is also
printed on Admission Certificate).
Age of the candidate must be between 18-23
years (plus 3 years special relaxation in upper
age limit as one time measure as on
01.01.2023, i.e., candidates should not have
been born earlier than 02.01.1997 and later
than 01.01.2005.
Note: Due to unprecedented COVID pandemic,
it has been decided by the Government to grant
three (3) years age relaxation beyond
respective prescribed upper age limit for all
categories of the candidates as one-time
measure for this recruitment."
7.1. The reason for rejection of candidature of the petitioner
has been reflected in the "Rejection Slip" dated
21.07.2021 is this:
"Rejection due to mismatch in Matric Certificate between
Application Form Original Matric Certificate."
7.2. Said reason for rejection of candidature tested against
the circumstances/eventualities stipulated in paragraph
7.2 of the Guidelines dated 12.06.2023 would make it
clear that such reason does not fall within the ken of the
circumstances/eventualities envisaged in the said
paragraph of the Guidelines.
7.3. The nature of mismatch which entails rejection of
candidature are that:
i. name,
ii. father/mother name,
iii. gender,
iv. date of birth and
v. domicile district.
Nevertheless, the reason for rejection of candidature/
online application of the petitioner does not envisage
mismatch in typing out Roll Number. It is not the case of
the opposite parties that the petitioner has not fulfilled
conditions given in paragraph 7.3 of the Guidelines,
dated 12.06.2023.
7.4. Thus, mismatch in furnishing the Roll Number in the
online Application Form warranting rejection of
candidature of the petitioner is arbitrary exercise of
power vested in the Board.
7.5. It is not denied that while typing out the Roll Number in
the online Application Form error has crept in. There is
no allegation of misrepresentation nor suppression of
material fact or undue advantage has been taken by the
petitioner.
7.6. In Sweety Kumari Vrs. The State of Bihar, (2023) 12 SCR
556 the question fell for consideration was:
"7. In view of the foregoing factual scenario, the
questions that fall for consideration before us are as
under:
i) Whether the rejection of the candidatures of the
appellants due to non-production of the original
certificate at the time of interview by the Bihar
Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred
to as "BPSC") is justified?
ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case,
what relief can be granted to the appellants?"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while answering the
question, observed thus:
"19. In the present case, the proof is available and true
photocopies were on record. The appellants‟
candidature could not have been rejected merely
because the original was not produced before the
Commission at the time of interview in particular
when such requirement was not mandatory, in view
of the manner in which the Rules are couched.
***
28. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned judgments
dated 03.11.2021, 04.09.2021 and 19.04.2023
passed by the High Court. The appellants Sweety
Kumari and Vikramaditya Mishra be accommodated
being successful candidate in the 30th Examination
and appellant Aditi be accommodated being a
successful candidate in the 31st Examination.
29. We clarify that this judgment is passed in the
peculiar facts of the case to mitigate the plea of
discrimination to candidates who are before us and
who knocked the door of the court well within time.
It is made clear here that similarly situated
candidates would not be entitled to claim the same
benefit further, because they have not come before
this Court within a reasonable time."
7.7. In Vashist Narayan Kumar Vrs. The State of Bihar, (2024)
1 SCR 1 it has been observed as follows:
"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.
12. The facts are undisputed. The appellant‟s
application uploaded from the cyber café did
mention the date of birth as 08.12.1997 while his
date of birth as recorded in the educational
certificate was 18.12.1997. It is also undisputed
that it is the appellant who produced the educational
certificates. He was oblivious of the error that had
crept into his application form. It is also undisputed
that the advertisement had all the clauses setting
out that in case the information given by the
candidates is wrong or misleading, the application
form was to be rejected and necessary criminal
action was also to be taken. It also had a clause that
the candidates had to fill the correct date of birth,
according to their 10th board certificate. The clause
further stated that candidates will fill their name,
father‟s name, address etc. correctly in the
application form. It states that any discrepancy, if
found, while checking the documents, the
candidature of the candidate will stand cancelled.
There was also a clause providing for correction of
wrong/erroneously filled application forms, which
stated that the errors can be corrected once by re-
depositing the application fee and filling a new
application. It also provided that those filling the
application on the last date could correct the
application till the following day.
13. Equally undisputed is the fact that after filling
out the application, the appellant cleared the
written examination and the Physical
Eligibility Test. It was also stated in the counter
affidavit that there were 61 unfilled vacancies
though it was submitted that it was meant for the
Gorkha candidates.
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 Vrs. Union 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 Vrs. 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.‟
The exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the
reason that law does not concern itself with trifles.
This principle is recognized in the legal maxim: De
minimis non curat lex.
***
25. On the peculiar facts of this case, considering
the background in which the error occurred,
we are inclined to set aside the cancellation.
We are not impressed with the finding of the Division
Bench that there was no prayer seeking quashment
of the results declared over the web. A reading of the
prayer clause in the writ petition indicates that the
appellant did pray for a mandamus directing the
respondents to consider the candidature treating his
date of birth as 18.12.1997 and also sought for a
direction for issuance of an appointment letter. A
Writ Court has the power to mould the relief. Justice
cannot be forsaken on the altar of
technicalities.
Conclusion
26. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High
Court in LPA No. 1271 of 2019 dated 22.08.2022
and direct the respondent-State to treat the
appellant as a candidate who has "passed", in the
selection process held under the advertisement No. 1
of 2017 issued by the Central Selection Board
(Constable Recruitment), Patna with the date of birth
as 18.12.1997. We further direct that if the
appellant is otherwise not disqualified, the
case of the appellant be considered and
necessary appointment letter issued. We
further direct that, in the event of there being
no vacancy, appointment letter will still have
to be issued on the special facts of this case.
We make the said direction, in exercise of
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India. We further direct that the State will be at
liberty in that event to adjust the vacancy in the next
recruitment that they may resort to in the coming
years. We notice from the written submissions of the
State that 21,391 vacancies have been notified in
Advertisement No.1 of 2023 and it is stated that the
procedure for selection is ongoing. We place the said
statement on record. We direct compliance to be
made of the aforesaid direction within a period of
four weeks from today."
7.8. In the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra Vrs. Union of India,
2016 SCC OnLine Del 6553, a Division Bench of Delhi
High Court has made the following observation:
"6. There can be no doubt that a candidate applying for
a Government job, or for that matter, any job should
fill in the Application Form carefully. No candidate
can claim any vested right to rectification of arrears
in an application. Union Public Service Commission
and the State Public Service Commissions deal with
lacs of applications, which are received pursuant to
an advertisement. Such applications are required to
be processed within a short time. A candidate, who
is not short-listed and/or not allowed to participate
in the selection process by reason of his own laches
in making careless mistakes, cannot claim any right
to be allowed to participate in the selection process.
7. It is for the body conducting the selection process to
decide whether mistakes should be allowed to be
rectified, if so, whether they should be rectified
within any specific time and what are the mistakes
which can be allowed to be rectified and other
similar questions. However, in view of the mandate
of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India, there
should be no discrimination or arbitrariness in
deciding these questions. All candidates applying for
the particular post/posts should be treated equally.
8. This is not a case where the petitioner had not at all
been short-listed. It is not a case where the
petitioner has not been allowed to participate in the
selection process. The petitioner had been allowed to
participate and had emerged successful in every
stage.
9. It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is
noticed in the application form and/or when any
suppression and/or misrepresentation 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.
***
15. As observed above, it is not the case of the
respondents that the petitioner derived any
advantage by entering the wrong date of birth in his
online and application. There is a difference
between a mere inadvertent error and
misrepresentation or suppression. There could
be no intentional misrepresentation as the
school certificate was submitted. The
penalisation of cancellation of the candidature on the
ground of a typographical error is arbitrary,
unreasonable harsh and disproportionate to its
gravity of the lapse. The writ petition is, therefore,
allowed and the pending application also stands
disposed of. The impugned order is set aside."
7.9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Divya Vrs. Union
of India, (2023) 15 SCR 44, while considering the scope
of "interference with the decision of the Selecting Body"
having noticed the above case of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court, observed as follows:
"80. It will be noticed that UPSC has considered these
omissions as trivial and as not going to the root of
the eligibility, unlike in the case of the petitioners
herein. In Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India
(2016) SCC OnLine Del 6563 (sic. 6553), Indira
Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking
for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
felicitously put the issue about the examining body‟s
right to decide as to which errors are material and
which are inessential and trivial."
7.10. The copies of the testimonials were available with the
online Application Form and the candidate was allowed
to participate in the examination conducted by the Staff
Selection Commission. It is not the case of the opposite
parties that the candidate has not fulfilled the conditions
stipulated in the Advertisement/Guidelines;
nonetheless, the petitioner was found successful in
written test and PST/PET. The mistake is found in
feeding the figures of Roll Number in the online
Application Form, which does not comprehend within
the connotation of the expression "mismatch" as
envisaged in Paragraph 7.2 of the Guidelines dated
12.06.2023.
7.11. The present case is not a case where any suppression
and/or misrepresentation is detected.
7.12. Taking cue from the above view expressed in the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this
Court has no alternative but to hold that the rejection of
candidature of the petitioner vide Rejection Slip dated
21.07.2023 cannot be countenanced.
Conclusion:
8. The rejection of candidature of the petitioner vide
Rejection Slip dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure-6) is not
supported by germane consideration inasmuch as the
reason ascribed to does not fall within the circumstances
enumerated in paragraph 7.3 of the Guidelines No.A.VI-
1/2022-Rectt (SSB)-CT/GD-2022, dated 12.06.2023
issued by the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police
Force (Recruitment Branch).
9. In the wake of the above, having diligently considered
the undisputed factual matrix, averments and
contentions of both the parties, and regard being had to
the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the
reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner vide
Rejection Slip dated 12.06.2023 issued by the Presiding
Officer, DV/DME, CT/GD-2022, Board No.1 (Annexure-
6), being found to be jejune, this Court is of the
considered opinion that said Rejection Slip in Annexure-
6 is liable to be set aside and this Court does so.
9.1. This Court on 08.08.2023 passed interim Order, which
is to the following effect:
"1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Mr.
Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite
Parties submitted that he has received instruction.
On the basis of such instruction, it was
submitted by the learned counsel for the
opposite parties that in case of mismatch in
name, father/mother name, general, DOB and
Domicile District, the candidature will be
rejected and candidate will not be allowed to
participate in further stage I.E., DME.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner has been qualified in the Physical and
Written Test.
4. In such view of the matter, the Opposite parties
are directed to permit the Petitioner to
participate in the Medical Test. However, the
same shall be subject to the final outcome of
the present Writ Petition.
5. List this matter in the 1st week of September, 2023.
6. Issue urgent certified copy of this order in course of
the day."
9.2. There is no plea set up at any stage by the opposite
parties that the petitioner was disqualified in the Medical
Test. Having found the petitioner successful at every
stage of examination conducted in the recruitment
process, it is, therefore, directed that the opposite
parties are required to treat the online Application Form,
as submitted by the petitioner as a candidate, is in
order.
9.3. It is further directed that as the petitioner is not
otherwise disqualified, and there being no
misrepresentation or misstatement in the Application
Form but for typographical error in filling up the figures
of Roll Number, which is of innocuous nature, her
candidature be considered and necessary steps be taken
to consider appointment of the petitioner.
9.4. Having given anxious consideration to the instant fact
and circumstance, this Court may also observe and
direct that in the event there being no vacancy, the
opposite parties may also consider appointment of the
petitioner in the post applied for on the special facts of
this case.
10. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with
the above terms, but in the circumstances there shall be
no order as to costs.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 20-Feb-2025 18:08:40
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 20th February, 2025//MRS/Suchitra
