Madras High Court
M.Palanimurugananthan vs The Directorate General Crpf ... on 14 October, 2022
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.P(MD)No.14323 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.14323 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.11977 of 2020
M.Palanimurugananthan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment branch)
Ministry of Home Affairs
East Block-7, Level-4, Sector-1,
RK Puram, New Delhi-110066.
2.The Regional Director,
Southern Region,
Staff Selection Commission,
2nd Floor, EVK Sampath Building,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600006.
3.Presiding Officer, Representative,
Second in Command, Member &
Detailed Medical Examination of
CT(GD)2018, RTC, ITBP
Iluppaikudi, Sivagangai District-630562. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the rejection letter issued by the third respondent, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P(MD)No.14323 of 2020
12.02.2020 under the authority of the respondents 1 & 2 and quash the same as
arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to confirm the
petitioner's selection for constable GD in CAPFs/NIA/SSF/Rifle man in Assam
Rifle exam-2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Rajiah
For Respondents : Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri
Assistant Solicitor General
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.
2. The Staff Selection Commission issued notification dated 21.07.2018 calling for applications from eligible candidates for the post of Constable in Central Armed Police Force. The petitioner applied in response thereto. The petitioner in his application had mentioned his community category as UR. The petitioner was aged about 26 years at the time of submitting his application. For unreserved candidate, the upper age limit was only 23 years as on 01.08.2018. However, for OBC candidate, the age was extendable upto 26 years. If the petitioner is considered as UR candidate, then, he was obviously age barred. If he was considered under OBC category, he was eligible to take part in the selection. The respondents held that the petitioner is not qualified to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 W.P(MD)No.14323 of 2020 even take part in the selection. The reasons has been mentioned as follows:-
“Wrong entry of caste in online application (Wrote UR in the place of OBC) and is overaged to be considered in UR.” Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He also relied on catena of case laws in support of his contention. The petitioner ought not to be denied appointment on the sole ground of having made wrong entry in the application form.
4. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. Typed set of papers has also been filed. The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents took me through its contents. The learned Assistant Solicitor General pointed out that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief for two reasons:-
(a) having mentioned his community category as UR, he cannot now be permitted to change the same.
(b) he had sought age relaxation on the ground that he is the victim of riot.
However, he could not produce any document or material to show that he is a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 W.P(MD)No.14323 of 2020 riot victim. She relied on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in AIR 1999 P&H 319 and few other decisions. She pressed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.
6. The writ petition was listed for admission on 26.11.2020. An interim order was granted on 14.10.2020 in the following terms:-
Challenging the rejection order issued by the 3rd respondent dated 12.02.2020 and for issuing a direction to the respondents to confirm the petitioner's selection for the post of Constable GD in CAPFs/NIA/SSF/Rifle man in Assam Rifle exam-2018, the present writ petition has been filed.
2.Mrs.Victoria Gowri, learned Assistant Solicitor General assisted by Mr.Sathya Boobathy, learned Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.
3. According to the petitioner, though he was successfully selected for the post of Constable-GD, the 3rd respondent, by proceedings dated 12.02.2020, had rejected the petitioner's selection stating that his caste name was wrongly entered in the online application as UR instead of OBC and that the petitioner has made a request for correction, but no reply from the respondents. The petitioner was finally selected for the said post and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 W.P(MD)No.14323 of 2020 completed the medical examination.
4.The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents would submit that the selection process is going on.
5.Thus, this Court prima facie is of the view that the entire selection process was over the petitioner got selected and waiting for counselling as the same was not happened due to inadvertent error in filling up of the caste details, but the fact remains, the petitioner belongs to OBC category and not UR category and one can easily find the same from a perusal of the community certificate of the petitioner.
6.Therefore, this Court directs the respondents to reserve one post vacant for the petitioner, till 29.10.2020.
7.Post the matter on 29.10.2020 under the caption “for orders”.
7. The reasons set out in the impugned order has already been extracted above. It is well settled that an order passed by an administrative authority has to be tested only in the light of what has been stated therein. It is not open to the respondents to add reasons at the time of argument or by filing counter affidavit. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in (2017) 7 MLJ 714 (National Institute of Fashion Technology V. V.S.Jayya Vishrant). Paragraph No.6 of the said order read as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 W.P(MD)No.14323 of 2020 “6. However, we do not lose sight of the fact that the students, who are in the age group of 17 or 18, are more prone to make errors or mistakes and those errors or mistakes could be unintentional. They would have committed all the errors or mistakes either due to lack of experience or due to subdued tension induced by the occasion. In such circumstances, a liberal approach is required to be adopted. Take for instance, a claim for reservation is a substantive right. That can be based only upon the right credential which is possessed right at the time of submitting the application.” This was followed in the decision reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 22576 (S. Sabarimalai Madha v. Teachers Recruitment Board). Paragraph Nos.16 & 17 of the said order reads as follows:-
16. “5. This leads to next question as to whether the petitioner could be permitted to correct her community status irrespective of the fact as to whether the mistake in entering the same as BC instead of MBC/DNC was at her instance or otherwise. This issue is no longer res integra and has been answered in the positive by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in National Institute of Fashion Technology, represented by its Director General v. V.S. Jayya Vishrant [(2017) 7 MLJ 714 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos. 31388, 31741 and 33390 of 2016 (Judgment dated 29.09.2016) [Vishnu Bargavi, S v. The Director, NEET Exam, Shiksha Kendra and followed in W.P.(MD) No. 17625 of 2017 dated 29.11.2017 [Ponnumani, M v. The Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board].
17. Having regard to the above said legal position and also considering the fact that the petitioners have already sent representations dated 01.10.2018 and 04.08.2018 respectively to rectify such mistakes before the certificate verification, I am of the considered view that for such mistake that was due to inadvertence, which can be rectified, the petitioners cannot be penalized by denying employment, as vacancies are available, in case they are otherwise https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 W.P(MD)No.14323 of 2020 found eligible, apart from community.”
8. This apart, several other Judges of this Court had also adopted the very same approach. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner belongs to OBC category. However, by mistake, he had described himself as UR in the application form. By interim order passed by this Court, post has been ordered to be kept vacant also. Therefore, no right of any third party will be affected. When the petitioner was otherwise eligible to take part in the selection process and he had also been eventually selected, for the mistake committed by him while filling up the application form, he need not be shown the door.
9. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside. The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to appoint the petitioner as per the selection results. This order will be issued within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/8
W.P(MD)No.14323 of 2020
To
1.The Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment branch) Ministry of Home Affairs East Block-7, Level-4, Sector-1, RK Puram, New Delhi-110066.
2.The Regional Director, Southern Region, Staff Selection Commission, 2nd Floor, EVK Sampath Building, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600006.
3.Presiding Officer, Representative, Second in Command, Member & Detailed Medical Examination of CT(GD)2018, RTC, ITBP Iluppaikudi, Sivagangai District-630562.
W.P(MD)No.14323 of 2020
and W.M.P.(MD)No.11977 of 2020 14.10.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8