Telangana High Court
Pothu Sampath Kumar vs Northern Power Distribution Company Of ... on 21 March, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.16279 of 2019
ORDER:
In response to the Notification dated 24.05.2018 issued by the
1strespondent-Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana
Ltd., (NPDCL), the petitioner applied for the Sub-Engineer position on
08.06.2018 and appeared for the examination on 08-07-2018, and
secured 83 marks. However, while filling the application form, he
mistakenly marked "Yes" to the column pertaining to the creamy layer
of BC-A, although he does not fall under the creamy layer. As a result of
this error, he was not called for certificate verification which was
scheduled for 03.10.2018, despite scoring above the 79 marks cut-off
for the BC-A (Non-Creamy Layer) category. According to the
notification, candidates must show proof of exclusion from the creamy
layer during certificate verification, and the petitioner is ready to
provide necessary proof that he belongs to non-creamy layer under
BC-A, but he was not called for certificate verification process. He filed
Writ Petition No.35646 of 2018, challenging the respondents' action of
not calling him for the verification of his certificates on or after 03-10-
2018.This Court by orders dated 05-10-2018 passed interim orders in
the writ petition, to the following effect:
"By way of interim order, respondents are directed to consider the
representation of petitioner dated 27.09.2018 and pass appropriate
orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order"
Thereafter, the petitioner visited the office of the respondent-
NPDCL and submitted a copy of the interim order, however, he was
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
informed that the certificate verification was postponed due to the
Election Code of Conduct. Thereafter, the certificate verification was
held on 19-12-2018, but the petitioner was not called for certificate
verification. He submitted a representation on 15-12-2018, however,
as no action was forthcoming from the respondents in spite of the
interim orders passed in the writ petition, he filed a Contempt Case,
C.C.No.3386 of 2018.Following the contempt proceedings, the
respondents issued an Order dated 24.12.2018 (served on 01-05-
2019), the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"(iii) Hence, the information uploaded by you in application form
online in the first instance in support of creamy layer of BC-A
category in terms of G.O.Ms.No.8, Backward Classes Welfare OP
Department dt. 13.11.2014 read with T.O.O. (CGM-HRD-Per)
Ms.No.188, dt.22.09.2014 will hold good. Your second thought
exercise limiting your connectivity to BC-A community by isolating
the creamy layer criteria is a futile exercise for accountability to
favour you.
(iv) Since you confessed the total error on your part by opting 'yes'
against column "whether comes under creamy layer", it cannot be
set aside to please you against the notification guidelines. It is
pertinent to mention in this regard that inter alia under Para III note
(2) and (3) thereof saying that the particulars furnished in the
application form will be final and if the information any furnished
by the candidate subsequently in any form will not be entertained
by TSNPDCL."
It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have not
sought any additional information to assess his creamy layer status,
such as details about his parents' civil service status or income; and
had the respondents requested the relevant certificates, he would have
submitted them to prove that he does not belong to the creamy layer.It
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
is his grievance that the respondents did not provide an edit option in
the online application, as is common with other recruiting agencies
like TSPSC, for rectifying inadvertent errors, if any,while filling out the
application form; and the decision to treat him as an OC or creamy
layer BC candidate without allowing corrections is arbitrary and
illegal. According to the Notification, if the petitioner were to be
treated as an OC or creamy layer BC candidate, the examination fee
would have been Rs. 120/-. However, he was treated as a BC candidate
and his application was accepted with a fee of Rs. 100/- as applicable
for BC candidates. It is submitted that despite the error in the
application, the respondents issued him a Hall Ticket mentioning his
reservation category as BC-A, and he attended the written examination
on 08-07-2018 and scored higher than the required cut-off marks and
had become eligible for next stage i.e., certificate verification. It is his
case that, had his caste certificate been verified, the respondents
would have confirmed that he does not belong to the creamy layer. The
respondents have filled 417 out of the total 497 posts of Sub-Engineer,
and 80 vacancies remain unfilled. Petitioner therefore prays for a writ
of Mandamus, declaring the order dated 24-12-2018 of the
2ndrespondent as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Mr. N. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Ms.K. Udayasri, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1; and Mr. Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent No.2-NPDCL. Perused the record.
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
inadvertently categorized himself as belonging to the creamy layer of
the BC-A category and that this error was genuine and should not
result in the denial of his right to be considered under the BC-A Non-
Creamy Layer category, as per the notification. He contends that the
respondents failed to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to
correct the error in the online application form and there was no
editing option/mechanism to amend such errors. He further contends
that despite the petitioner securing 83 marks, well above the cut-off of
79 for the BC-A (Non-Creamy Layer) category, the respondents failed
to call the petitioner for the certificate verification scheduled for 03-
10-2018. Learned counsel contends that as the petitioner belongs to
Non-Creamy layer in BC-A category, he paid the examination fee of
Rs.100/- and his application was accepted. Learned counsel further
contends that the respondents did not request any relevant documents
to verify the creamy layer status of the petitioner, such as caste or
income certificates and had such documents been requested, the
petitioner would have promptly provided them, and the respondents
would have verified that the petitioner does not belong to the creamy
layer, and non-providing of opportunity to produce the documents
deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to prove that he belongs to
BC-A (Non-creamy layer) category. Learned counsel submits that there
was a total of 497 Sub-Engineer vacancies, out of which 417 have been
filled, and 80 vacancies remain unfilled. Learned counsel submits that
the petitioner has got higher marks than the cut-off required for BC-A
non-creamy category, and therefore the respondents may be directed
to consider his candidature under the BC-A Non-Creamy Layer
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
category by verifying his caste status, for selection and appointment as
Sub-Engineer. Learned counsel relies on the Common Order dated
04.02.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3772 of 2019 and batch,
and submits that this Court in similar circumstances for selection of
Junior Linemen posts, a candidate belonging to non-creamy layer of
BC-E and erroneously declared as creamy layer, directed the
respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioners
therein upon production of non-creamy layer certificate. Learned
counsel relies on Vashist Narayan Kumar v. The State of Bihar 1 to
contend that the Apex Court in the said judgment held that the error of
the petitioner therein was not so grave as to constitute wrong or
misleading information. He would further draw attention of the Court
to the judgments referred by the Apex Court in Vashist Narayan
Kumar (supra) i.e., Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India2, Anuj
Pratap Singh v. Union Public Service Commission 3,
4. Learned Standing Counsel, based on the counter affidavit filed by
the respondents, submits that the petitioner, in the online application
form, categorically stated that he belongs to the BC-A community and
replied the "Creamy Layer" column as "Yes". As a result, his
candidature was considered under the Open Category (OC), and he
was not called for certificate verification, as he was not within the zone
of vacancies under the BC-A (Non-Creamy Layer) category. Learned
Standing Counsel contends that the respondents acted in accordance
with the information provided in the application, and thus, the
(2024) 1 SCR 1
(2016) SCC OnLine Del 6563
2018 SCC OnLine Del 10982
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
petitioner cannot now seek to modify the details submitted in his
application form. It is further contended that the terms and conditions
of Notification No.2/2018, dated 24.05.2018, were mandatory and
required strict adherence; and as per Para III, Note-2 and Note-3 of the
Notification, the details furnished in the application form were final,
and no subsequent representations or corrections would be
entertained. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the petitioner
consciously filled in the application form and indicated that he belongs
to the Creamy Layer, and therefore, he is not eligible to be considered
for the BC-A Non-Creamy Layer category. Learned Standing Counsel
contends that since the petitioner himself indicated that he belongs to
the Creamy Layer, he excluded himself from being considered under
the BC-A Non-Creamy Layer category as per the notification; and his
representation dated 27.09.2018, after the examination results,
requesting to be considered under the BC-A category, was therefore
rightly rejected by the respondents as he had self-declared himself
under the Creamy Layer. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. G. Hemalatha 4
held that the instructions in the recruitment process are mandatory
and must be strictly adhered to, and the principle laid down in the said
judgment applies to the present case, where the terms of Notification
No. 2/2018 clearly stipulate that no modifications will be allowed after
submission of the application form; and therefore the petitioner
cannot now seek relief for correcting the details furnished in his
application form after the process has been concluded. Learned
Standing Counsel submits that the selection process for the post of
(2020) 19 SCC 430
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
Sub-Engineer (Electrical) as per Notification No. 2/2018 has been
completed, and the selected candidates have already been issued
appointments in December 2018, and the petitioner was not called for
certificate verification due to his status as an OC candidate, and thus,
he has no right to be considered for appointment as his claim was not
valid within the selection process. It is also contended that the
petitioner failed to submit a valid BC-A Non-Creamy Layer certificate
at the time of submitting his application. Learned counsel relying on
Ramesh Chandra Sha v. Anil Joshi 5Learned counsel submits that the
petitioner is estopped from taking different stand now in the writ
petition saying "No", after having said "Yes" in the online application.
Learned counsel submits that the certificate was only obtained by the
petitioner on 02.08.2018, well after the application deadline of
18.06.2018, and as per the Notification, the details provided in the
application were final, and no subsequent documents or
representations could be considered. Learned Standing counsel
submits that the petitioner's admission in the application form that he
belongs to the Creamy Layer categorically excluded him from being
considered under the BC-A Non-Creamy Layer category, and therefore
the action of the respondents by relying on the information provided
by the petitioner is justified, and there cannot be post-selection
corrections permissible, as the petitioner himself acknowledged his
Creamy Layer status and cannot now change his position to seek
benefits under a different category. It is further contended that the
notification specifically stated that no corrections or representations
would be entertained after the submission of the application. This
(2013) 11 SCC 309
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
provision was strictly enforced, and the petitioner's application was
accepted based on the details provided therein. Learned Standing
Counsel further submits that acceptance of Rs.100/- as application fee
for BC category, and considering against vacancies reserved for BC
category are two different things, and the application fee has no
relevance for the reason that though different fee was prescribed for
different castes/categories, considering against reserved vacancies
depends on meeting the eligibility criteria for that category. Learned
Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner cannot now challenge the
process or seek a modification of his application after the selection
process has concluded. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the
last meritorious candidate in the OC category secured 88 marks, while
the petitioner secured 83 marks, and therefore the petitioner's
candidature was rightly not considered for further selection process.
5. 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 connotation,
caused the confusion; and though he belonged to non-creamy layer,
erroneously indicated as belonging to creamy layer. It may be noted
that the petitioner indicated YES to the creamy layer column, thereby
implying that he belongs to creamy layer, thus, not eligible for
vacancies against BC-A category. 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
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
respondent authorities to consider his candidature by submitting
Certificate dated 02.08.2018 whereby he is certified as belonging to
non-creamy layer.
6. 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 deal with 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 decision, 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?"
7. 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."
It was further held in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) as
follows:
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
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
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.
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
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
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.
8. 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
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
he could not avail the corrective mechanism provided. However, in the
instant case, admittedly there is no corrective mechanism provided in
the online application portal to rectify any inadvertent errors made by
an applicantwhile filling out the application form, thereby the
petitioner herein is in a disadvantageous position than the one in
Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra).
9. Upon considering the 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.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, granting the relief as
prayed for. No costs. The respondent-NPDCL shall pass appropriate
orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
21st March, 2025
ksm
wp_16279_2019
NBK,J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.16279 of 2019
21st March, 2025
ksm
