Telangana High Court
M. Pardha Saradhi, vs The State Of Telangana, on 21 March, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.40384 of 2018
ORDER:
The petitioner, belonging to the B.C-A community, hails from a
poor background and holds a Diploma in Electrical Engineering (DEE)
from the State Board of Technical Education.The 2nd respondent
issued Public Recruitment Notification No. 2 of 2018 on 24.05.2018,
notifying 497 vacancies for Sub-Engineer (Electrical). The petitioner,
eligible under the B.C-A category, appeared for the written test on
08.08.2018 (Hall Ticket No. 1120217) and secured 76/100 marks.
However, candidates were slated for verification only up to 421
vacancies, leaving the remaining unaddressed.The petitioner was not
considered for verification due to an inadvertent error while filling out
the application. He mistakenly marked "Yes" to the query on falling
under the creamy layer due to limited English proficiency. However, as
per Clause 7 of the notification, the latest certificate excluding creamy
layer status must be produced at verification.The petitioner submitted
representations on 07.09.2018 and 26.09.2018, enclosing the Non-
Creamy Layer Certificate and Income Certificates from 2013-14 and
2018. Despite this, no action was taken, and he was denied verification,
leading to loss of selection opportunity despite his merit.At the
certificate verification stage, as per Clause 7, the petitioner should be
considered under B.C-A based on his Non-Creamy Layer Certificate.
Since the selection process is ongoing, he stands a fair chance if
reclassified under B.C-A.The petitioner prays to issue a writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
considering him under B.C-A for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical)
(Notification No. 2/2018, dated 24.05.2018) as arbitrary and illegal.
2. Heard Mr. G. Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. K.
Udaya Sri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1; and Mr.
Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-TSNPDCL.
3. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents, including the 2nd respondent, is that TSNPDCL issued
Notification No. 2/2018 on 24.05.2018 for 497 Sub-Engineer
(Electrical) posts. The last date for applications was 18.06.2018. The
petitioner applied on 08.06.2018 under BC-A but marked "Yes" for the
Creamy Layer status. He secured 83 marks in the written exam on
08.07.2018 but was considered under OC vacancies and was not called
for certificate verification. He filed WP No. 35646 of 2018, and this
Hon'ble Court directed consideration of his representation
(27.09.2018). His request was rejected via letter dated 24.12.2018.The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. G. Hemalatha (2020
19 SCC 430) held that selection instructions are binding, and High
Courts cannot modify them. Notification No. 2/2018, dated
24.05.2018, clearly stated that application details could not be altered
later. Thus, the petitioner's request to modify his category is
untenable.Selection under Notification No. 2/2018 concluded in
December 2018, and candidates joined their posts. The petitioner
failed to adhere to application guidelines, which explicitly stated that
data entry was final. His claim was only made after results were
declared on 27.09.2018.The petitioner obtained a Non-Creamy Layer
certificate on 02.08.2018, after applying. Eligibility is assessed based
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
on application details, and he self-declared as Creamy Layer. Hence, he
was considered under OC and did not meet the OC cut-off which is 88
marks as he got 83 marks.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh
Chandra Sha Vs. Anil Joshi (2013 11 SCC 309) ruled that candidates
cannot challenge selection criteria post-application. Since he paid Rs.
100/- as a BC candidate, it does not automatically qualify him under
BC-A vacancies.The Hall Ticket was system-generated based on his
input; it does not alter application details. All vacancies under
Notification No. 2/2018 were filled, and the petitioner did not meet
the OC cut-off.The Hon'ble High Court, in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in W.P. No.
16279 of 2019, issued interim orders to consider the petitioner under
BC-A Non-Creamy Layer if he qualifies. However, his declaration
indicating Yes to Creamy layer disqualifies him to be considered
against BC-A category. It is therefore contended that the writ petition
lacks merit.
4. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner to the counter of 2nd
respondent inter alia stating that the petitioner marked 'yes' by
understanding the phrase "under the creamy layer" as "below" due to
ambiguity in wording. The Hon'ble High Court, in its order dated
09.11.2018, referred to the Oxford Dictionary's definition of "under" as
"below." The petitioner having genuinely confused by the ambiguous
word marked "yes" for the creamy layer while stating BC-A community
and Rajaka sub-caste. Due to the ambiguous question, the response
was erroneous.Upon realizing the mistake, the petitioner submitted
representations on 07.09.2018 and 26.09.2018, enclosing a Non-
Creamy Layer certificate (C/760/2018, dated 06.09.2018). The
TSNPDCL results were published on 14.12.2018, and the petitioner
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
had sought correction before results were declared.The claim that 497
vacancies were notified but only 427 were available due to transfers
contradicts recruitment norms. It is stated that Notification No.2/2018
dated 24.05.2018 allocated 4 BC-A (men) and 2 BC-A (women) posts.
Candidates R. Chenna Rao (91), K. Raghavendra (88), A. Manideep
(87), and T. Durga Bhawani were appointed under the open category.
Only one BC-A (woman) post was filled by Chintapalli Indu (71). Four
BC-A (men) and one BC-A (woman) vacancies remain
unfilled.TSNPDCL published results on 04.12.2018. The application
form did not require a Non-Creamy Layer certificate. Respondents'
claim that the petitioner lacked the certificate at the time of
application is baseless, as submission was not required until
verification, which the petitioner never reached. He enclosed the
certificate with representations.The last selected BC-A (G) candidate
secured 87 marks, and the last OC (G) candidate secured 84. Since BC-
A (G) marks were higher, the top BC-A candidates should have been
placed in OC, ensuring BC-A vacancies were properly filled. The
petitioner ranks third in the BC-A list.It is stated that submission of the
Non-Creamy Layer certificate was not mandated in the application.It is
contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chanda v. Chairman
JEE1 ruled procedural lapses can be relaxed, and the ambiguity in
wording was created by the respondents, and they cannot retroactively
clarify "under" as "within.".It is stated that the implead petitioners
scored higher than the petitioner, but since no BC-A candidates were
selected, they occupy the first two places, and the petitioner stands
(2003) 9 SCC 779
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
third, and the petitioner submitted representations on 28.01.2019 and
31.01.2019 to respondent-TSNPDCL authorities.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on
the lines of writ affidavit, primarily contends that the petitioner
misunderstood the phrase "under the creamy layer" due to the
ambiguous wording in the application form and inadvertently marked
"yes." The term "under" was reasonably interpreted as "below," and the
petitioner acted in good faith. The Hon'ble High Court, in its interim
order dated 09.11.2018, acknowledged that "under" can mean "below"
as per the Oxford Dictionary. The error was thus attributable to the
respondents' poorly framed question.The petitioner promptly
submitted representations dated 07.09.2018 and 26.09.2018, well
before the results were declared, requesting a correction. The non-
creamy layer certificate dated 06.09.2018 was also enclosed. The
petitioner had no reason to misrepresent his status, as he qualified
under the BC-A category and was eligible for selection.The
respondents' contention that 497 vacancies were notified but only 427
were available due to appointments by transfer is legally
unsustainable, as vacancies designated for direct recruitment cannot
be diverted. Despite notifying four posts for BC-A men and one for BC-
A women, the respondents failed to fill these vacancies appropriately.
Candidates from BC-A who secured higher marks were appointed
under the general category, leaving BC-A vacancies unfilled. The
petitioner, who secured 87 marks, ranked third in the BC-A category
and should have been considered. It is contended that the respondents
never required the non-creamy layer certificate at the application
stage, nor did they provide an opportunity for correction at
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
verification. The petitioner had the certificate well before the exam
results, and his representation was made in due time. Learned counsel
contends that reliance on Dolly Chanda v. Chairman JEE (2003) 9 SCC
779 by the respondents is misplaced, and the petitioner has non-
creamy layer certificate and could have produced had he been called
for certificate verification.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner marked "yes" to the phrase "under the creamy layer". The
application form provided clear instructions, and any doubts should
have been clarified through the help desk. The petitioner failed to
verify his response before submission and did not raise any query at
the relevant stage. The respondents contend that 497 vacancies were
notified, but 427 were available due to appointments by transfer,
which is legally permissible. The recruitment process adhered to the
prescribed rules, and all appointments were made based on merit. The
last selected BC-A (G) candidate secured 87 marks, and the petitioner,
despite scoring the same, cannot claim selection as other meritorious
candidates occupied higher positions. The petitioner did not meet the
criteria for rectification post-submission, as per the recruitment
norms. The reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Dolly Chanda
v. Chairman JEE is misplaced since the case does not pertain to
erroneous submissions by candidates but rather procedural
relaxations in document submission. The ambiguity claim is
unfounded as the phrase "under the creamy layer" is standard
terminology in reservation policies. The respondents acted in
compliance with established procedures, and the petitioner has no
vested right to claim selection. The representations submitted after
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
publication of results cannot alter the recruitment process and
therefore the writ petition lacks merit.
7. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the
record, it may be noted that the specific case of the petitioner is that
the column provided to indicate his status with regard to creamy layer
is ambiguous as the word "under" could be interpretable as 'below',
and not 'within', and employing such word, having different
connotations, caused the confusion; and though he belonged to non-
creamy layer, he erroneously indicated as "Yes", thereby implying that
he belongs to creamy layer. However, admittedly, the online portal did
not permit corrections to the data entered in the application form,
thereby the error remained. The petitioner represented to the
respondent authorities to consider his candidature by submitting
Certificate dated 02.08.2018 whereby he is certified as belonging to
non-creamy layer.
8. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar (1 supra), wherein the
Apex Court had the occasion to decide a similar issue of error
committed by the petitioner therein in an online application form for
the post of Constable notified by the Central Selection Board. The
question that fell for consideration, as framed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, is as follows:
"10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the error
committed in the application form, which was uploaded is a
material error or a trivial error and was the State justified in
declaring the appellant as having failed on account of the same?"
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
9. The Apex Court referred to Ajay Kumar Mishra (supra)
wherein it was held at para 9 as follows:
"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."
10. It was further held in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) as
follows:
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 vs. 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 vs. 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
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
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." (emphasis supplied)
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.
In fact, in Anuj Pratap Singh (supra), as is clear from para 14 of the
said judgment, the candidate unable to correct the error at the first
point was forced to repeat it while submitting the application for
sitting in the main exam since he had no other option. The Court
accepted the explanation and condoned the error in the filling up
of the column pertaining to the date of birth.
18. The learned counsel for the State drew attention to the
verification by the appellant, of the details in a printed form
furnished by the selection board. He contended that the appellant
signed the form which carried the date of birth. First of all, the
form was a printed form which reflected the date of birth as given
by the appellant and the appellant signed the printed form on
10.03.2018. We are inclined to accept the explanation of the
appellant that since the appellant was unaware of his own mistake
he had mechanically signed the printed form. It is only later, on
11.06.2018, on the publication of the result that the appellant
realized the error. We do not think that the appellant could be
penalised for this insignificant error which made no difference to
the ultimate result. Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or
wilful suppression.
19. In this case, the appellant has participated in the selection
process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the
application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection
process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of
this molehill. Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafe,
got the better of the appellant. He omitted to notice the error and
even failed to avail the corrective mechanism offered.
11. It is pertinent to note that in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra), the
petitioner made a similar error while filling out an online application
form for recruitment to the post of Constable, and further he could not
avail the corrective mechanism provided therein. However, in the
instant case, admittedly, there is no corrective mechanism provided in
the online application portal to rectify any inadvertent errors made by
the candidate/petitioner while filling out the application form, thereby
the petitioner herein is in even more disadvantageous position than
the one in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra).
12. Upon considering the arguments and judgments relied on, and
also the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, this Court is of
the view that the case in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) is squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case.In that view of the matter,
this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, granting the relief as
prayed for. No costs. The respondent-TSNPDCL shall pass appropriate
orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
21st March, 2025
Ksm
wp_40384_2018
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.40384 of 2018
21st March, 2025
ksm
