Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Indra vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:41189-Db) on 16 September, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:41189-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15529/2025
Indra D/o Shri Chhugu Ram W/o Late Shri Jagdish Bishnoi, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Goyon Ki Dhani, Village Baadoo
Ehsil Chitalwana, District Sanchore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Communications, Department Of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New
Delhi-110116.
2. The Addl. Director General, Department Of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi-110116.
3. The Superintendent Of Post Offices, Pali Division, Pali-
322236.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aaskaran Maru.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Order
16/09/2025
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with
the following prayers:-
"(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
impugned order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the
respondent department (Annexure-11) and the
impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur in
O.A. No. 290/00216/2025 (Annexure-12), being
illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law may kindly
be quashed and set aside;
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondent authorities may kindly be directed to
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:04:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41189-DB] (2 of 8) [CW-15529/2025]
consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post
of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) under notification no.
17-21/2023-GDS dated 27.01.2023, by treating the
name of the Board in the online application form as
per her actual Secondary School Examination
certificate issued by the Uttar Pradesh State Open
School Board, Allahabad, and to declare her result in
accordance with her merit position.
(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper
in the facts and circumstances in the case.
(iv) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly
be allowed with costs."
2. The controversy in narrow compass is that the petitioner
participated in the recruitment process of 'Gramin Dak Sevak' in
pursuance of the notification dated 27.01.2023. The petitioner
being fully eligible filled her form through an E-Mitra Kiosk as a
candidate under Woman OBC category but erroneously she filled
the name of the Board as 'Board of High School and Intermediate
Education', Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad' whereas her Board was
'Uttar Pradesh State Open School Board, Allahabad'.
3. Thereafter, the merit list was prepared in the recruitment
process and as per the qualifications her name got shortlisted.
However, at the time of document verification, the mistake of
wrong name of the Board was pointed out and her candidature
was rejected.
4. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner preferred an
Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") which was dismissed
vide order dated 14.07.2023. The petitioner being aggrieved of
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:04:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41189-DB] (3 of 8) [CW-15529/2025]
the same approached this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 16550/2024
vide order dated 17.12.2024 whereby the petitioner was given
liberty to file a fresh representation before the appropriate
authority (Annexure-10). The representation so filed by the
petitioner was rejected vide order dated 08.06.2023 (Annexure-
11). The petitioner thus again preferred an Original Application
before the Tribunal which was dismissed vide order dated
23.07.2025. Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has
preferred the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kunal Upadhyay has
demonstrated from Annexure-11, the reason given by the
respondent Authorities for the disqualification of the candidature
of the petitioner. The operative portion of the order reads as
follows:-
"uksfVfQds"ku 17&21@2023 thMh,l fnukad 27-01-2023 esa
vkWu ykbZu vkosnu Hkjus dh fnukad 27-01-23 ls 16-02-23 Fkh
vkSj fdlh izdkj ds lq/kkj gsrq fnukd 17-02-2023 ls 19-02-
2023 rd dk le; Hkh fn;k x;k Fkk ftldk Hkh vki }kjk
mi;ksx dj xyrh ugha lq/kkjh xbZA mijksDr uksfVfQds"ku ds
fcUnq la[;k 8 (ix)o 8 (x) ds vk/kkj ij tks bl izdkj gS
8(ix) Applications submitted without complete data will
be rejected. In case an applicant uploads wrong
documents/information and unnecessary documents,
his/her candidature will be rejected.
8(x) At the time of verification of documents upon
shortlisting of an applicant if the data/marks fed in the
portal are found mismatch with original documents,
his/her candidature will be rejected even if there is
small spelling error in name of applicant father/mother
name etc.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:04:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41189-DB] (4 of 8) [CW-15529/2025]
ds funsZ"kksa dk ikyu djrs gq, vkidk vkosnu
v/ksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk vLohd`r fd;k x;k gSA
v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ vkids mTtoy Hkfo'; dh dkeuk
djrk gSA
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of
document verification, the candidature of the petitioner has been
rejected due to very a trivial ground of petitioner mentioning the
Board as of 'Board of High School and Intermediate Education,
Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad' whereas it should have been 'Uttar
Pradesh State Open School Board, Allahabad'. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submits Rule 8(ix) and 8(x) which have been
quoted by the respondents for rejecting the candidature were for
something serious and not for such trivial mistake. Moreover,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of
Reena Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B.
Special Appeal Writ No. 1175/2024, decided on
02.01.2025, the operative portion of which reads as follows:-
"5.7.4. This Court therefore observes that in light of the
maxim, Diminim is non-curat lex and, the interest of
justice, the claim of the appellant is sustainable.
6. In addition to the aforementioned observation,
this Court also asked the respondents whether any of
the five reasons namely; malafide intention,
concealment, fraud, ineligibility and non-qualifying on
merit, was the reason while they were opposing the
correction of the trivial mistake. Learned counsel for
the respondents continued to oppose the rectification
but at the same time, could not point out anything
affecting the aforesaid five crucial factors, so as to oust
the appellant from the selection process, which could
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:04:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41189-DB] (5 of 8) [CW-15529/2025]
persuade this Court not to interfere in the case at
hand.
7. This Court is of the view that the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar
(supra) is absolutely applicable to the present case.
The appellant had originally filled the proper application
form in the category of non-TSP and did not have any
malafide intention or an intention to commit fraud or
conceal any information regarding her eligibility, nor is
there any non-merit to her credit which could oust her
from the recruitment. Rather, she got to know about
the error only at the stage of document verification.
The appellant scored 51.13% marks and was placed at
serial No.19 in OBC category and thereby, she also
came within the list of selected candidates.
7.1. Such a trivial mistake committed by the appellant
is writ large but no intention can be attributed to the
appellant to have made a correction of non-TSP to TSP.
The original information was rightly furnished and
should have been considered. The amended/rectified
information did not have any ramification as far as the
candidature of the appellant is concerned which could
have given her any opportunity to avail any other
benefit out of the same during the course of such
recruitment.
7.2. This Court is of an un-controverted view, that
neither there was any mal-intention on the part of the
appellant nor was thereany concealment or any kind of
fraud committed by her. This Court while finding that
the appellant is fully eligible to hold thepost in question
in pursuance of the recruitment in process and also
while keeping into consideration the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar
(supra) finds that the appellant cannot be deprived of
her appointment.
8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed to the
extent of present appellant. The impugned order dated
22.08.2024 passed learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10878/2024 is
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:04:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41189-DB] (6 of 8) [CW-15529/2025]
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to
give appointment to the appellant in female non-TSP
category for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior
Grade. Such appointment shall be given within a period
of three months from today, which shall be prospective
in nature.
9. Although it is submitted by the learned Additional
Advocate General that recruitment process has
completed, this Court observes that the posts of
Compounder/Nurse keep on recurring in large numbers
in respondent-Department and thus, the respondents
shall be required to utilise any post which is available
now, for the purpose of this order.
10. This order is passed only while keeping into
consideration the nature of recruitment and the large
number of posts that are available. The aforementioned
directions given by this Court are only for prospective
appointment and no retrospective benefit shall be given
out of the same."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
Division Bench in case of Reena Choudhary (supra) has relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vashist
Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar; Civil Appeal No. 1 of
2024, SLP (C) No. 12230/2023, decided on 02.01.2024
wherein the Court was conscious of the fact that there was a
window of correction available to the candidates and merely a
trivial mistake did not disqualify the candidate from the
recruitment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further emphasized
that reasons such as malafide intention, concealment, fraud,
ineligibility and non-qualifying on merit which have been
mentioned as principle non-condonable grounds for rejection are
not there in the present case as well.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:04:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41189-DB] (7 of 8) [CW-15529/2025]
8. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
submissions on the ground that there was an apparent inefficiency
and incompetence reflected on part of the candidate to have not
given the correct name of the Board from which, she has acquired
her qualification.
9. This Court after considering the facts of the case find that
the petitioner who participated in the recruitment process initiated
out of notification dated 27.01.2023 for the post of 'Gramin Dak
Sewak' found place in the merit list but at the time of document
verification her candidature was disqualified on the ground of
wrong mentioning of the Board from where she had acquired the
requisite qualification as she was supposed to fill the Board as
'Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh,
Allahabad' whereas she filled it as 'Uttar Pradesh State Open
School Board, Allahabad'.
10. Apparently, the petitioner does not fall under the
disqualification mentioned in the judgment of Reena Choudhary
(supra) as there was no malafide intention, concealment, fraud,
ineligibility and non qualifying on merit in the present case also.
As far as the point of gross inefficiency and incompetence of the
petitioner in filing of the form as argued by the counsel for the
respondent is concerned, the same could have been a case, if by
application of mind the petitioner could have come at a conclusion
other than the conclusion which was reflected in the form whereas
in this case, it is only an error in the name of the Board which is
neither computed nor arrived at and it nowhere shows any kind of
inefficiency of the candidate but simply shows that when a form is
being filled at the E-Mitra Kiosk it becomes sometimes
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:04:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41189-DB] (8 of 8) [CW-15529/2025]
electronically generated and thus it is amenable to mistakes.
Electronic generation of certain columns at an E-Mitra Kiosk where
number of candidates are filling the form it is understandable and
can be easily understood to be within the domain of a trivial
mistake. Moreover, the information of wrong Board is not a false
information rather it is an erroneous information. Accordingly, the
instant writ petition is allowed. Thus, the impugned order of
Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated
23.07.2025 is quashed and set aside.
10. The respondents are directed to give the petitioner
appointment on the post of 'Gram Dak Sevak' within a period of 3
months from receiving the certified copy of this order, if she is
otherwise eligible as per merit and other conditions. The
appointment shall be prospective in nature and no retrospective
benefit shall be available to the petitioner.
11. Stay application and all pending applications stand disposed
of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
1-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 03:04:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
