Allahabad High Court
Vikas vs Union Of India And 6 Others on 27 February, 2023
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19534 of 2022 Petitioner :- Vikas Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar,Pankaj Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pooja Agarwal Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the rejection slip dated 26.09.2022 as well as the result dated 08.10.2022 issued by the respondent no.3 as a result, the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of seeking rectification in the form filled by him.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the purposes of selection for Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces/NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2021. The petitioner had filled his form online and had participated in the written examination dated 08.12.2021. The petitioner also participated in the medical examination and thereafter was called for detailed medical examination. It is at a later stage that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had mentioned the incorrect roll number in the form, which required the petitioner to furnish his matriculation roll number. Actually the petitioner had furnished the roll number of his intermediate examination instead of the matriculation and for the aforesaid reason, his candidature was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was merely human error and it was open for the authorities to have permitted the petitioner to rectify the same for the reason that the petitioner did not seek any benefit rather by filling up the incorrect details, he had put himself to a disadvantageous position and in any case by correcting the details, he was not seeking to get any benefit rather he was not even disturbing the merit. In the aforesaid circumstances, it would be too harsh for the authorities to not consider the case of the petitioner for rectification and for the said reason, the rejection is patently erroneous and deserves to be set-aside.
Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 while refuting the aforesaid submissions has pointed out that the advertisement, which was issued contained certain clauses and clearly in Clause 12.2, which are the instructions for the prospective candidates that they must be careful while filling their online applications, as the commission was not required to undertake a detailed scrutiny. In case, if any details were not found substantiated when the scrutiny is undertaken, the candidature would be cancelled and the decision of the commission shall be final. Similar the provision from the advertisement has been pointed out as contained in Clauses 19.3 and 8.6. It is thus urged that in light of the clear caveat, which formed part of the advertisement which clearly directed the prospective candidates to be careful while filling the applications, as no requests for change/correction/modification would be entertained. It was the duty of the petitioner to have been careful while filling the applications and now after he admits that there is an error in his application, such a request cannot be entertained and even otherwise he is not entitled for any benefit consequently the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while refuting the aforesaid submissions has relied upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Gupta Vs. State of U.P. in Writ-A No.19409 of 2020, which was decided alongwith a bunch of petitions on 05.12.2022 as well as a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and others Vs. State of U.P. in Special Appeal Defective No.302 of 2020, which was decided alongwith a bunch of special appeals connected therewith on 22.04.2022. The thrust of the submission is that in so far as the dictum laid down by a Co-ordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench is to the effect that in case, if some information which is incorrect has been given and it does not put a candidate to any advantageous position, then such incorrect information inoculation of other grounds, may not be a ground to reject the candidature and in case, if a person is permitted to correct the error and it does not put him to any advantageous position then he may be so permitted.
The Court has considered the submissions and also perused the material available on record. It is an admitted case that while filling up the form, the petitioner had actually mentioned the roll number of his intermediate as well as its year of passing rather the petitioner was required to furnish the details in respect of his matriculation. It is also the sole reason upon which, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.
In the aforesaid backdrop, the Court is required to see as to whether such a correction can be permitted and whether the dictum, which has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vijay Gupta (supra) and Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and others (supra) would be applicable.
In order to answer the aforesaid, it will be relevant to notice the certain clauses, which are contained in the advertisement and for the sake of ready reference are being reproduced hereinafter:-
"8.6 Before submission of the online application, candidates must check that they have filled correct details in each field of the form. After submission of the online application fort, no change/correction/modification will be allowed under any circumstances. Requests, received in this regard in any form like Post, Fax, Email, by hand, etc. shall not be entertained.
12.2 The commission will not undertake detailed scrutiny of applications for eligibility and other aspects at the time of Computer Based Examination and PET/PST and, therefore, candidature will be accepted only provisionally. The candidates must to go through the requirements of educational qualification, age, physical and medical standards etc. and satisfy themselves that they are eligible for he post, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated when scrutiny is undertaken, the candidature be cancelled and the Commission's decision shall be final.
19(3). Collection of documents from the candidates and their verification will be carried out at the time of DME by the CAPFs. Therefore, candidature will be accepted only provisionally. Before applying, candidates should go through the requirements of educational qualification, age, physical standards, etc. and satisfy themselves that they are eligible for the posts. When scrutiny of document is undertaken at the time of DME, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature will be cancelled."
From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that it was informed to all the prospective candidates that before submission of their online applications, the candidates were required to check that they have filled the correct details in each field of the form. After the submission, no change, correction or modification was to be allowed under any circumstances and further if any request in this regard, in any form would not be entertained.
Noticing the aforesaid clause in context with the other clauses, as reproduced hereinabove as 8.6, 12.2 and 19.3, it would be clear that all the prospective candidates has been put to general notice regarding the fact that they were required to fill up all the details with alertness and no requests for change, rectification or correction would be entertained.
In the aforesaid context, if the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is seeing, it would indicate that in the said decisions, it cannot be disputed whether such a stipulation was mentioned in the advertisement itself. What can be gathered is that there was a G.O., which has been considered by the Court while granting the benefit to certain candidates. However, the fact remains that in the instant case there is a clear contention as well as a stipulation contained in the advertisement itself, which was required to be followed any deviation thereto would give rise to disturbing the level playing field for the candidates.
This Court is fortified in its view in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. G. Hemalata and Another in (2020) 19 SCC 430 wherein the issue before the Apex Court was regarding relaxation of certain instructions. The Apex Court did not find favour with the judgment of the High Court under challenge who had relaxed the conditions and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:-
"7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission.
8. The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration in humanitarian ground. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent in Taherakhatoon (D) By Lrs. Salambin Mohammad and Chandra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case.
9. In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature of the Instructions. It cannot be said M. Vennila v Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, (2006) 3 Mad. LJ 376 (1999) 2 SCC 635 (2003) 6 SCC 545 that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations.
10. In her persuasive appeal, Ms. Mohana sought to persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the Respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, Venkatarumishi. J. held that:-
13-exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hand cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in far of a strict construction of the Rules and hold cut the High Court had no such power under the Rules."
Having notice the aforesaid and in light of the undisputed fact that the aforesaid stipulation, which have been noticed in this order, was part of the advertisement, the petitioner knew the consequences and after having applied in terms of the advertisement which also contains a stipulation for not entertaining any request for modification/rectification and the authorities have acted within the said clauses and no clause indicates that any power is reserved to relax any condition. Accordingly this Court is not inclined to interfere. The petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall however be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.2.2023 Zafar