Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/30/2021 on 18 May, 2021
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010189222020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) 30/2021
Bishal Jyoti Kalita, S/o
Rupen Kalita,
R/o Village Khoomtai Alimora,
P.O. Botamora, P.s. Moranhat,
District-Charaideo,
Assam-785670. PETITIONER.
Versus
1. The Oil India Limited,
Represented by the Resident Chief Executive,
Duliajan, District-Dibrugarh,
Assam-786602.
2. The Human Resources Authority,
Oil India Limited, Duliajan, Dibrugarh
Assam-786602.
3. The Deputy General Manager,
Employment Relation Department, Oil India Limited, Duliajan, Dibrugarh Assam-
786602.
4. The Selection Board,
Headed by Resident Chief Executive, Duliajan, District-Dibrugarh,
Assam-786602. RESPONDENTS.
Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA For the petitioner : Mr. H. Bezbarua, Mr. S.J. Sarmah.
.... Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. S.N. Sarma ... Sr. Advocate.
Date of hearing : 23.04.2021
Date of judgment : 18.05.2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. H. Bezbarua, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for Oil India Limited.
2. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to an Advertisement dated 21.08.2020, for filling up 36 posts of "Operator I (HMV) Grade VII", the petitioner took part in the selection process. However, the petitioner's candidature was rejected due to the petitioner having stated in his online application that he had passed his HSSLC examination on 20.05.2007, though in the HSSLC certificate, it was written as 22.05.2007. Further, in respect of his experience certificate, the certificate issued by the employer had given the petitioner's experience from the date 02.05.2016, while in the online application, the petitioner had given the date as 20.05.2016.
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the mistakes committed by the petitioner in his online application were noticed at the time the petitioner's original documents were examined. He submits that there was no intention to suppress any material facts from the respondents by giving a wrong declaration in the online application. He also submits that the Page No.# 3/8 giving of the wrong dates in the online application should not disqualify the petitioner from being considered for the vacant posts. He submits that the skill test i.e. Driving Test has not been conducted by the respondents till date.
The petitioner's counsel has thus prayed that the petitioner should be allowed to correct his online application and he be allowed to take part in the selection process. In support of his submission that the petitioner should be allowed to take part in the selection process, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Order dated 13.10.2020, passed by the Jaipur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 291/807/2015 with M.A. No. 291/471/2020, "Sanwar Mal Yadav Vs. Union of India through the General Manager" and the Judgment dated 31.07.2017, passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 3721/2017 "Arkshit Kapoor Vs. Union of India and Ors."
4. Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the Oil India Limited has produced the official records. He submits that there were 748 candidates/applicants who applied for the posts, out of which 136 passed the written test, which included the petitioner. Out of the 136 candidates, the petitioner and 21 others were disqualified, in view of the fact that the dates given by them in their online applications did not match with the dates recorded in their original certificates. He submits that if this Court were to condone the mistakes committed by the petitioner, than there would be an avalanche of cases for correction of the dates of the other 21 candidates. He further submits that the terms and conditions of the Advertisement clearly provided that all the details given in the online application form would be treated as final and no changes would be entertained. He also submits that the candidates were required to give a declaration that the particulars stated in the online application form were true and correct and if the information was incorrect, they would make no claim for appointment against the said post for which they had applied. He accordingly submits that the writ petition should be dismissed, as there was no infirmity with the respondents disqualifying/rejecting the petitioner from participating further in the selection process.
Page No.# 4/8
5. I have heard the counsels for the parties.
6. The Advertisement dated 21.08.2020 provides under sub-clause (iv) of Clause 6.0 Document(s)/Certificate(s)/Testimonial(s) and sub-Clause (iii), (iv) & (x) of Clause 9.0 "General Instructions" as follows:
"6.0 (iv) During document verification at any stage of the selection process, the candidature may be rejected if the document(s)/certificate(s)/testimonial(s) etc. are not found to be in order or as per our requirement. Further, in case it is detected that a candidate has furnished any incorrect/doctored/false information/document(s)/ certificate(s)/testimonial(s) or has suppressed any material fact(s), his/her candidature will stand cancelled and name of such candidate(s) will be blacklisted for applying against any post in Oil India Limited in future."
"9.0 (iii) Candidate(s) are advised to carefully read the full advertisement for details of eligibility criteria and selection methodology before submission of the online application form.
(iv) Candidate(s) are advised to furnish the correct information about their qualification, age, caste category etc.
(x) Candidate(s) will be wholly/exclusively responsible for the information provided in his/her online application form. All details given in the online application form will be treated as final and no changes will be entertained."
The candidates also gave a Declaration as follows:
"I hereby declare that the particulars stated in the above application form are true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed or incorrect information has been furnished. In case any of the information furnished by me in this application is found to be false, incorrect and misleading at any time after submission of the same, I shall be fully responsible for the same and have no objection against the cancellation of my candidature. I will make no claim for Page No.# 5/8 appointment against the post and shall also have no objection for taking any legal action as deemed fit by Oil India Limited".
7. A perusal of the terms and conditions laid down in the Advertisement dated 21.08.2020 clearly shows that the candidature of any applicant can be rejected, if the candidate has furnished incorrect/false information or suppressed any material facts. Clause 9.0 (iii)(iv)(x) clearly state that the candidates are advised to furnish correct information and that all details given in the online application form will be treated as final and no changes will be entertained. The candidates were also required to give a declaration as per the Advertisement dated 21.08.2020 wherein, it was stated that if any information furnished was found to be false, incorrect and misleading at any time after submission of the same, the candidate would have no objection against the cancellation of his candidature. A reading of the above Clause 6.0 and 9.0 of the Advertisement dated 21.08.2020 and the undertaking to be given has more to do with warning the candidates to not furnish false, incorrect and misleading information.
8. Though the prayer for correction of the entries in the online application on the ground that the same does not cause prejudice to anybody and that it was an unintentional mistake is attractive, this Court would also have to consider the effect of allowing the prayer of the writ petitioner, inasmuch as, while the present case relates to only Oil India Limited and in respect of posts of Heavy Motor Vehicle Driver, there would be various other vacancies to be filled up by various other organizations, departments of Government etc. In the present case also, there were 748 numbers of applicants. Out of the 748 applicants, 136 candidates cleared the written test, out of which the candidatures of the petitioner and 21 others were rejected on the ground of there being a mismatch in the entries made in the online applications vis-à-vis their original certificates. As such, the decision made in this case could have a bearing on the rejection of the candidature of the other 21 candidates also, who have not approached this Court, keeping in view the mandate of Article 14 to 16 of the Constitution.
9. Numerous vacancies are filled all over the State and in the country by Page No.# 6/8 different organizations and departments. Also, with time, online applications inviting candidates for filling up of vacant posts has become the norm. For vacant posts to be filled up through the Public Service Commission and through various other Agencies for posts such as Constables, Armed Forces etc., tens of thousands of applicants make online applications. Keeping the above in view, there is no infirmity with the respondents requiring candidates to submit correct particulars in the online applications, which should pass the test of document verification, i.e., the particulars given in the online application are the same as given in the original certificates. This method of rejecting candidates for giving wrong particulars is reasonable, as otherwise, the respondents and other organizations/departments would be swamped with requests for correction of the online applications, keeping in view the probability of inadvertent errors being made by individuals. This would/could lead to a rise in other similar cases, the effect of which would result in there being enormous delay in concluding a selection process.
10. The above being said, the other issue that has to be looked into, is as to whether the petitioner's candidature should be rejected/disqualified due to an unintentional bona fide mistake committed by him. In the case of Arkshit Kapoor vs. Union of India and Others, WP(C) 3721/2017 which was decided by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 31.07.2017, the Division Bench considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India, WP(C) No. 11642/2016, which was disposed of vide Judgment dated 23.12.2016 and held that the rejection of the petitioners candidature due to the mismatch of the petitioners' date of birth in the application form vis- à-vis his Class-X/XII certificates was unreasonable and arbitrary, inasmuch as, the petitioner therein had been allowed to clear the selection process prior to the rejection of his candidature. Further, the petitioner therein was eligible for selection, even if the selecting authority had taken any of the dates of birth into consideration.
11. The Jaipur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in it's order dated 13.10.2020 passed in Sanwar Mal Yadav vs. Union of India, OA No.291/807/2015 with Page No.# 7/8 MA No.291/471/20020 held that the rejection of the candidature of the applicant on account of a typographical error in the online application form, whereby the applicant had filled the serial number of Certificate of Senior Secondary Examination instead of Secondary Examination was arbitrary, harsh and unreasonable.
12. In the case of Vipul L. Bamane v. Union of India & Another , 2020SCC Online Bom 7023, the petitioner therein who was a candidate in the recruitment process for appointment of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Force challenged the orders by which his candidature has been rejected. The petitioner's candidature had been rejected on the sole ground that the petitioner therein in the online application form had mentioned his date of birth as 12.12.1997 instead of 12.02.1997. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that as the petitioner did not gain any advantage by mentioning a wrong date of birth in the online application form, the candidature of the petitioner should be considered in the selection process. The impugned orders were consequently set aside in the above case.
13. In the present case, the mismatch in the date of passing the HSSLC examination and also in respect of his experience as recorded in the certificates vis-à-vis the entries made in the online application does not have any effect on the eligibility of the petitioner for taking part in the selection process. The petitioner does not stand to gain any advantage by the wrong entry made in the online application vis-à-vis the entries recorded in the certificates. As can be seen from the pleadings and the records, the mistakes committed by the petitioner, with regard to the dates does not appear to be a deliberate mis- representation or concealment of facts. It appears to be a genuine mistake which has been inadvertently committed by the petitioner.
14. The record goes to show that the skill test, i.e., the driving tests has not been conducted by the respondents till date and as such, the selection process is not completed as on date. In the case of WP(C) No. 3721/2017,"Arkshit Kapoor Vs. Union of India and Ors., the Division Bench had set aside the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner therein, on the ground that the petitioner therein had been allowed to complete the selection process and had apparently been successful in the selection process. However, Page No.# 8/8 his candidature had been cancelled due to incorrect information being given with regard to his date of birth in his online application vis-à-vis his original certificate. The Division Bench had held that the exclusion of the petitioner therein by rejecting his candidature, after he had cleared the selection process was unreasonable and arbitrary. The facts of the present case are slightly different, inasmuch as, the petitioner herein has not completed the selection process. As the petitioner has been allowed to take part in the written examination and keeping in view the fact that the inadvertent mistake committed by the petitioner does not give any advantage to the petitioner in the selection process, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's candidature should not be rejected due to a bona-fide mistake committed by him. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to correct his online application and he should be allowed to take part in the selection process including the driving test.
It is made clear that this decision has been made only in respect of the petitioner herein and it will not be applicable to the other rejected candidates who have not approached this Court, as they could be deemed to be fence sitters. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant