Tripura High Court
Smt. Mousumi Sen vs The Union Of India And Others on 6 September, 2023
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.557 of 2023
Smt. Mousumi Sen
.........Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Union of India and others
.........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Deputy SGI.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
06/09/2023
Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Deputy SGI for the respondents-Union of India.
2. Petitioner has participated as a UR female category candidate
bearing Roll No.5601011613 for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in
Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) under Advertisement at Annexure-A
published in the month of October, 2022. She has qualified in Computer Based
Examination, Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Standard Test (PST),
Medical Examination and document verification has also been done. The score
sheet of the Computer Based Examination at Annexure-C indicates the final
score i.e. 57.44712 obtained by the petitioner. Annexure-D is the result of
Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for Constable
(GD) in CAPFs for the year 2022 in relation to the petitioner where she has
been shown as 'Qualified'. Since there was an error in filling her date of birth
in the online application, she has been served with a Rejection Slip dated
02.08.2023 [Annexure-G]. Her correct date of birth is 10.07.1999, but
inadvertently it was filled up as 10.10.1999.
3. Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
the petitioner, being a general category female candidate, has an age relaxation
of 3(three) years as on 01.01.2023 beyond the age limit i.e. 18 years to 23 years
prescribed under the Advertisement. It is submitted that the merit list at
Annexure-I dated 20.08.2023 shows the cut-off details of female candidates
selected against State/UT-wise vacancies of CAPFs. It also shows that for the
State of Tripura in the UR category, there are four posts in which, one of them
has been filled up and the cut-off mark is 49.66418. It is submitted that because
of the error in the date of birth during filling up of online application, her
candidature has been rejected, though she has qualified in all the tests i.e.
Computer Based Examination, Physical Standard Test (PST), Physical
Efficiency Test (PET), Medical Examination and document verification has
also been done. Petitioner has submitted a representation on 21.08.2023 before
the Director General, CRPF, Assam regarding rechecking of documents after
submission of affidavit for correction of date of birth in SSC-GD-2022
examination. Petitioner has enclosed her Admit Card of Madhyamik
Examination, PRTC, Aadhaar Card, Certificate of Birth to show that her correct
date of birth is 10.07.1999, and not 10.10.1999. It is submitted that though
Clause 8.6 of the advertisement states that candidates must check the correct
details before submission of online application and that after submission of
online application, no change/correction/modification will be allowed under
any circumstances, but the present case is one of extreme hardship in which the
respondents should not resort to technical objections to reject the candidature of
the petitioner who belongs to female category and has otherwise qualified in all
the rigorous tests conducted for recruitment to the CAPFs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court, in
a case of Sri Biswajit Rudra Paul v. Union of India & others in WP(C)
No.1002/2022 vide order dated 12.07.2023, has been pleased to direct the
competent authority under the respondent in respect of a similar recruitment
exercise for the post of Constable (GD) under the CAPFs to consider the
representation of the petitioner as regards the date of birth of the said petitioner
vis-à-vis admissible documents such as birth certificate issued by the Chief
Registrar, Births & Deaths, Agartala Municipal Corporation, PAN card,
Passport, Aadhaar Card, PRTC, , etc. It is submitted that there was an error in
the date of birth in the Madhyamik certificate of the said petitioner though the
date of birth issued by the Agartala Municipal Corporation was of a much prior
date based on which all other documents with correct date of birth such as
passport, PRTC, driving license etc. were issued. In the said case, this Court
had the occasion to examine the para material provisions of Clause 12.9 and
12.10 of that advertisement. It is submitted that there is no discrepancy in the
date of birth of the petitioner in any of the documents which are admissible as
proof of date of birth in the present case. Therefore, respondents should be
directed to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically after due
verification of all her documents and allow her appointment to the post of
Constable (GD) against the unreserved vacancies existing for the State of
Tripura in the CAPFs. Otherwise grave injustice would be caused to the
petitioner who had competed in all the rigorous tests conducted by the
respondents. Petitioner's representation has not yet been redressed. As such,
she has approached this Court.
5. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Deputy SGI for the respondents-
Union submits that since the matter has been taken up for the first time,
instructions have not yet been furnished. He has referred to Clause 8.6 of the
advertisement [Annexure-A] which has earlier been referred to in this order. It
stipulates that no change or correction or modification will be allowed in the
online application after submission. It is submitted that in case such corrections
are allowed, it would be difficult for the respondents to complete the selection
exercise, as there may be errors in the case of several such candidates in the
online application. The exercise for recruitment to CAPFs is at a very large
scale and, therefore, the candidates should be diligent in filling up their online
application form.
6. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the relevant material particulars placed from the pleadings
and the documents on record. It appears that petitioner's candidature has been
rejected despite qualifying the Computer Based Examination, Physical
Standard Test (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and also medical
examination for the reason that there is an error in the date of birth in her online
application i.e. 10.10.1999, which should be 10.07.1999 as are borne from her
educational certificates such as Madhyamik Admit Card, PRTC, Aadhaar, the
Birth certificate dated 27.07.1999 issued by the Department of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of Tripura. These documents are enclosed to the
representation of the petitioner at Annexure-K. Indeed Clause 8.6 provides that
no change/correction/modification in the application shall be allowed after
submission of the documents. Petitioner's participation in the tests has been
provisional. During document verification, it has been found that the date of
birth reflected in the online application has a mismatch with the correct date of
birth i.e. 10.07.1999. It is also evident that the petitioner has got 57.44712
marks in the computer based examination which is above the cut-off marks i.e.
49.66418 against the UR vacancies for the State of Tripura in ITBP. It further
appears from the merit list at Page 63 which contains the cut-off details of
female candidates selected against State/UT-wise vacancies of CAPFs, a part of
the final result published by the Staff Selection Commission that there are
4(four) posts in that category and only one of them has been filled up. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the
judgment dated 12.07.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1002/2022. In the said case,
this Court, after taking note of the discrepancy in the date of birth in the
Madhyamik Examination certificate which was issued much later in the year
2012 compared to the birth certificate issued by the Chief Registrar, Births &
Deaths, Agartala Municipal Corporation in the year 1997 and other documents
such as Passport, Aadhaar Card, PRTC, Driving License etc. and the provisions
of Clause 12.9 and 12.10 of the advertisement of similar nature issued by the
Staff Selection Commission for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD)
under the CAPFs, directed the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner
as regards the correct date of birth after due verification from the issuing
authorities within a period of 5(five) months.
7. It, therefore, appears to the Court that the respondents should
consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law taking into
account the fact that the educational certificate and all other certificates named
above showing date of birth entry do not have a mismatch except that the
mismatch is in the month of the date of birth entry i.e. October (10-10-99)
instead of July (10-07-99) in her online application. It also need to be kept in
mind that such candidates belongs to interior areas of states like Tripura in the
northeastern region and may not have the proper assistance in submission of
such online applications invited by the recruiting agencies. In case the
respondents are satisfied that the error in the month of her date of birth entry in
the online application is inadvertent and otherwise all admissible documents
such as educational certificates of Madhyamik Examination, PRTC, Aadhaar
Card, etc. show the same correct date of birth i.e. 10.07.1999, the competent
authority/respondent No.5 should consider her sympathetically. Let such
consideration be made on the representation of the petitioner within a period of
6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
9. It is however made clear that the instant order has been passed in
the facts in circumstances of this case and may not be treated as precedent in
future.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pijush MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2023.09.11 15:23:42 +05'30'
