Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikas Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 25 October, 2024
1
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1951/2020
WITH
O.A. No. 2005/2020
M.A. No. 2575/2020
O.A. No. 2007/2020
M.A. No. 2576/2020
O.A. No.2012/2020
M.A. No.2578/2020
O.A. No.2006/2020
M.A. No.2577/2020
O.A. No.2008/2020
O.A. No.2022/2020
M.A. No.2601/2020
O.A. No.2011/2020
M.A. No.2579/2020
O.A. No. 2018/2020
M.A. No.2591/2020
O.A. No.2010/2020
M.A. No.2580/2020
O.A. No.2009/2020
M.A. No.2582/2020
&
O.A. No.2015/2020
Reserved on: 24.09.2024
Pronounced on: 18.10.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
2
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
1. O.A. No. 1951/2020
Vikas Kumar
Group "C"
Ex-Serviceman
Seeking Recruitment as
Constable in Delhi Police
Aged about 35 Years
S/o Sh. Emrat Singh
R/o C-1, 3/179, 4th Floor,
Swastik Apartments
Sector-2, Block-3,
Rajender Nagar,
Sahibabad, UP
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
C.G.O Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
2. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
.... Respondents
2. O.A No. 2005/2020
Dashrath Singh
S/o Sh. Kan Singh
R/o VPO-Moodwara, Tehsil-Dhod,
Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan-332023
Aged about 28 Years
Group' C'
....Applicant
3
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi- 110002
.... Respondents
3. O.A. No. 2007/2020
Narender Singh
S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Singh
R/o 143, Sainik Enclave, Sector-1
Gali No. 12, Mohan Garden Uttam Nagar,
Delhi-110059
Aged about 28 Years
Group' C'
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
4
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi- 110002
.... Respondents
4. O.A. No.2012/2020
Ashish
S/o Rohtas
R/o VPO-Shamri (Buran), Tehsil-Gohana,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana-131306
Aged about 23 Years
Group' C'
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
5
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
3. The Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi- 110002
.... Respondents
5. O.A. No. 2006/2020
Jabbar Hasan
S/o Sh. Kasim Ali
R/o VPO- Kharar,
Tehsil - Budhana,
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar,
UP - 24776
Aged about 40 Years
Group 'C'
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi- 110002
.... Respondents
6
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
6. O.A. No.2008/2020
Akhlak Ahmed
S/o Sh. Zafar Iqbal
R/o F-152/7A, Ram Colony,
Chhatar Pur Extension,
New Delhi- 110074
Aged about 23 Years
Group' C'
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi- 110002
.... Respondents
7. O.A. No. 2022/2020
Vikas Kumar
S/o Sh. Ranveer Singh
R/o Village Tarakabass,
Post Chanana, Tehsil Chirawa,
Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajathan-333026
Aged about 27 Years
Group' C'
....Applicant
7
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi- 110002
.... Respondents
8. O.A. No. 2011/2020
Babar
S/o Sh. Sajid
R/o VPO- Garhi Basic,
Distt Panipat,
Tehsil - Bapoli,
Haryana - 132103
Aged about 26 Years
Group 'C'
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
8
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi- 110002
.... Respondents
9. O.A. No.2018/2020
Virender
S/o Sh. Satpal
R/o Kalanaur, Tehsil Kalanaur,
Distt. Rohtak, Haryana- 124113
Aged about 25 Years
Group 'C'
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
9
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi- 110002
.... Respondents
10. O.A. No. 2010/2020
Vikash
S/o Sh. Subhash
R/o VPO-Garhi Sanpla,
Tehsil Sanpla,
Distt. Rohtak,
Haryana- 124501
Aged about 22 Years
Group' C'
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi- 110002
.... Respondents
10
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
11. O.A. No.2009/2020
Geeta
D/o Sh. Attar singh
R/o VPO- Chhitroli,
Distt. Mahendra Garh,
Tehsil- Kanaina,
Haryana- 123027
Aged about 24 Years
Group' C'
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
3. The Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi- 110002
.... Respondents
12. O.A. No.2015/2020
Manpreet Singh
Son of Sh. Gurmeet Singh
resident of House No. 19/20,
Kasturba Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032
....Applicant
11
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Block No-12 CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No-12 CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. Delhi Police Recruitment
Cell New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp Delhi-110009
.... Respondents
(Advocate for applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Singal in OA No.
1951/2020)
(Advocate for respondents : Ms. Sumedha Sharma, Mr.
Sushil Kumar Pandey in OA Nos. 2012/2020,
2579/2020, 2011/2020 & 2009/2020, Mr. Gyanendra
Singh, Mr. Hanu Bhaskar in OA Nos. 2011/2020 &
2018/2020, Mr. R. K. Jain in OA Nos. 2005/2020 &
2007/2020)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
Since a common question of facts and law is involved in the present batch of OAs, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted primarily from OA No. 1951/2020.
12
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
2. The brief facts leading to the present OAs are that the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued an advertisement on 01.08.2020, inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police with closing date as 07.09.2020 and the date for online examination from 27.11.2020 to 14.12.2020. 2.1 Mr. Anil Singal, learned counsel for the applicant in OA No. 1951/2020 submitted that the applicant is an Ex- Servicemen and he is eligible to apply for the post only for the said selection as for any subsequent selection he may become over aged. The applicant finding himself eligible for the said post applied for the same, however, while going through the printout of the application form submitted by him on 02.08.2020, he found that his application is incomplete and, therefore, may be invalid. The applicant has stated to have approached the office of Respondent No. 1 on 24/28.08.2020 for correction in his application, however, he is stated to have been informed that his such request cannot be entertained in view of the provision of Para 8.6 and Instruction No. 8 under Para 20 of the aforesaid advertisement. In this background, the 13 (C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch applicant is stated to have again applied for the said selection process online, however, subsequently, the applicant came to know that his subsequent application has also been rejected on the ground of "multiple application" and accordingly, requisite admit card has not been issued to the applicant.
2.2 Mr. Singal Learned counsel appearing for the applicant in OA No. 1951/2020 submitted that the applicant has submitted the subsequent application(s) not to derive any illegal benefit but the same was only on account of innocent and inadvertent error. He further argued that the rejection of the candidature of the applicant is not on account of the applicant's involvement in any kind of malpractice but only on technical grounds inasmuch as the applicant has not been able to submit his application complete in all respect and he has preferred multiple applications. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the applicant has preferred representations for redressal of his grievances by praying for permitting him to participate in the selection process referred to hereinabove. However, no 14 (C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch remedial action has been taken by the respondents. Mr. Singal, learned counsel for the applicant in OA No. 1951/2020 submitted that the applicant has challenged the provisions of para 8.6 and Instruction No. 8 under para 20 of the aforesaid advertisement as well as the rejection of his candidature. He submitted that the case is covered by the order/judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 03.04.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 925/2017 titled Monu Kumari vs. Staff Selection Commission inasmuch as therein in the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has quashed certain provisions of the advertisement in the brochure of the relevant advertisement for the examination. He has further placed reliance upon the order/judgment dated 10.08.2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4829/2017 and invited our attention to para-19 of the said judgment wherein their Lordships have ruled as under:-
"19.Thus, there is sufficient authority to guide us in the matter, and what emerges is that the minor omissions, which do not come in the way of the examining body in fairly evaluating the candidature of the candidates without compromising the confidentiality required to be maintained in the examination, should not be accepted as an excuse to reject the candidature of the candidate. The claim of the petitioner that each and every instruction 15 (C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch issued by the examining body in relation to an examination process is sacrosanct, and has to be rigidly and strictly followed to the T, cannot be accepted."
2.3 Mr. Singal, had further submitted that the SSC has taken a policy decision dated 05.08.2020 to give one time exemption to 4560 candidates of CHSL (10+2) (tier-II) 2018 who were disqualified on the grounds of unfair means. He argued that in the present case, at least, there is not even an allegation of applicant being involved in any kind of unfair means and, therefore, there is no reason or justification available to the respondents not to entertain the applicant's such application, which was found to be complete in all respect by the respondents for permitting the applicant to participate in aforesaid selection process by issuing relevant Admit Card. He has further placed reliance upon the order/judgment dated 20.08.2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 9073/2019 wherein in para-9, their Lordship has ruled as under:-
"9. It is not the case of the respondents that by filling wrong date of birth, the petitioner would get benefit out of it. However, the date of birth as 19.05.1994 instead of 09.05.1994 is inadvertently filled in online form. Thus, the petitioner who is at the present age, starving for the career cannot be punished for this minor error occurred on the part of the petitioner."16
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch 2.4. He also placed reliance upon order/judgment dated 23.06.2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 11642/2016. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court has ruled in paras 9 and 15 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 by 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.
15. As observed above, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner derived any advantage by entering the wrong date of birth in his online and application. There is a difference between a mere inadvertent error and misrepresentation or suppression. There could be no intentional misrepresentation as the school certificate was submitted. The penalization of cancellation of candidature on the ground of a typographical error is arbitrary, unreasonable harsh and disproportionate to its gravity of the lapse. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the pending application also stands disposed of. The impugned order is set aside."
2.5. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Arkshit Kapoor Vs. Union of India and Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 3721/2017 wherein their Lordship in Para 15 has observed as under:-
"15. The respondents have merely relied upon Note 3 of Rule 3 of the Examination Notice as reproduced above. A bare reading of the said Note would show that in case any variation is found in date of WP(C) 3721/2017 Page 9 17 (C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch birth, "Disciplinary Action" was warned. Disciplinary action is initiated when warranted and justified, and not for small aid insignificant typing mistakes or lapse. These cannot be the ground for the cancellation of the candidature. Similar view was taken by this Court in the judgement of Ajay Kumar Mishra (Supra). The aforesaid clause is not to disqualify and harm those who make small mistakes due to mechanical failure or slips of the hands or fingers, but to ensure administrative convenience and prevent candidates from seeking review or fresh considerations resulting in chaos, uncertainty and violation of timeline."
3. More or less, the factual matrix in the other OAs is also same.
4. Opposing the grant of relief, Ms. Sumedha Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the present OAs are not maintainable in view of the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 1960/2020 and OA No. 1962/2020 and that it is an admitted case that the applicants have violated the provisions of the impugned brochure/advertisement and, therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected their candidature. She further argued that the impugned brochure/advertisement is having the force of law and till the time the same holds the field, the candidature of the applicants for the said examination/selection is liable to be rejected on account of contravention of any of the clause thereof. She had 18 (C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No. 8343-8344 of 2011 titled Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. dated 28.09.2011 by inviting our attention to para 28 of the said judgment, wherein their Lordship has ruled as under:-
"28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure.
Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete.
Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
4.1 She argued that in the aforesaid case it has been held that the selection process has to be done in accordance with the stipulated procedure and there cannot be any 19 (C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch relaxation in terms of the conditions of the advertisement unless such a benefit is specifically reserved. She had also invited our attention to paras 30-31 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which read as under:-
"30. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in concluding that the respondent No.3 had not treated the condition with regard to the submission of the certificate along with the application or before appearing in the preliminary examination, as mandatory. The aforesaid finding, in our opinion, is contrary to the record. In its resolution dated 21st May, 2010, the Commission has recorded the following conclusions:-
"Though Shri S. Khan had mentioned in his letter dated 10.12.2009 that he was resubmitting the Identity Card with regard to Locomotor Disability he, in fact, had submitted the documentary proof of his Locomotor Disability for the first time to the office of the A.P.S.C. through his above letter dated 10.12.2009. However, after receiving the Identity Card the matter was placed before the full Commission to decide whether the Commission can act on an essential document not submitted earlier as per terms of advertisement but submitted after completion of entire process of selection. The Commission while examining the matter in details observed that Shri S. Khan was treated as General candidate all along in the examination process and was not treated as Physically Handicapped with Locomotor Disability. Prior to taking decision on Shri S. Khan it was also looked into by the Commission, whether any other candidate's any essential document relating to right/benefits etc. not furnished with the application or at the time of interview but submitted after interview was accepted or not. From the record, it was found that prior to Shri S. Khan's case, one Smt. Anima Baishya had submitted an application before the Chairperson on 26.2.2009 claiming herself to be a S.C. candidate for the first time. But her claim for treating herself as a S.C. candidate was not entertained on the grounds that she applied as a General candidate and the caste certificate in support of her claim as S.C. candidate was furnished long after completion of examination process."
31. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly 20 (C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice."
5. Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents had adopted the submissions made by Ms. Sumedha Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and he had also argued that the present OAs are not maintainable. He submitted that the conditions stipulated in the brochure had been uniformly applied to all the candidates and, therefore, there is no arbitrariness. He has, besides the judgment of Saifudaullah Khan (supra), placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 3603/2020 titled Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr Vs. Anit Kr. Dass. He invited our attention particularly to para 7.1 of the said judgment wherein their Lordships have ruled as under:-
"7.1. In the case of yogesh Kumar (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that recruitment to public service should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post."21
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch
6. In addition to the arguments put forth by Ms. Sumedha Sharma and Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents in OA Nos.
2011/2020 & 2018/2020 further submitted that since there was no provision in the Notice of Examination for giving any relaxation in accepting multiple applications submitted by the candidates and keeping in view the provision of the Notice of Examination [Para-20 (6)], the applications of the applicants were rejected and their candidature was not considered for the said examination.
In this connection, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 03.05.2019 in Civil Appeal No.4597 of 2019 arising out of SLP Civil No.8494 of 2018 - Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs Sandeep Shriram Warade&Ors. has held as under:
"If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same."22
(C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch 6.1. Concluding his argument, Mr. Bhaskar submitted that since the instructions on the subject are clear in the Notice of the Examination, approaching the court for relief on this count is not tenable.
7. Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents in OA Nos. 2005/2020 and 2007/2020 adopted the arguments advanced by Ms. Sumedha Sharma, Gyanendra Singh and Mr. Hanu Bhaskar and further submitted that in the Notice of Examination, the candidates have been cautioned to fill up the application form very carefully. As per the procedure given in the Notice of Examination at Annexure-I and Annexure-II, the candidates could make any modification in the Application Form before submitting the same. They were advised to check all the entries in the Application Form carefully before submitting the same to the Commission. It has been clearly laid in the Notice of Examination that once the online Application has been submitted, no change in any particulars, whatsoever, will be allowed/ entertained. In Annexure-II of the Notice of Examination, the detailed procedure/steps have been given for filling up 23 (C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch of online application form. At Serial No. 3, the candidates had been advised that if they want to modify any of One- Time Registration details, they can do so by clicking on 'Modify Registration' Tab and make suitable corrections before proceeding further. At serial No. 18, the candidates had been advised to preview and verify the information provided by them. If they wanted to modify any entry, they had to click on 'Edit/Modify' button and make requisite corrections before proceeding further. They had been further advised that when they are satisfied that the information is correctly filled, only then they should submit the application as they will not be able to make any correction in the online application after submission of the application. These instructions have been uniformly applied to all the candidates as per the provisions of the Notice of Examination.
8. Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents in OA Nos. 2012/2020, 2579/2020, 2011/2020 and 2009/2020 added that while the applicants filled the application form, they were bound by the terms and conditions of the Notice of Examination. It 24 (C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch was their duty to go through the instructions before starting to fill the online application form. However, they did not do so. Had the applicants gone through the instructions before filling the online application form and were careful while filling the form, there would have been no occasion to apply once more to correct the details of the form.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
10. ANALYSIS :
10.1. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that since the impugned advertisement is having the force of law and till the time the same holds the field, any contravention of any of the clause thereof, will render the candidature of the applicants for the said examination/selection invalid/liable to be rejected. It is also a fact that the conditions stipulated in the advertisement had been uniformly applied to all the candidates. Further, in the advertisement, the candidates were cautioned to fill up the application form very 25 (C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch carefully and an option to modify the Application Form before submitting the same was also provided at various stages. However, it has also been clearly laid that once the online Application has been submitted, no change in any particulars, whatsoever, will be allowed/entertained. 10.2. In view of the aforesaid, the claim of the applicants is not tenable. Further, at this belated stage, no direction qua re-consideration of the candidature of the applicants can be issued to the respondents. Accordingly, the OAs are dismissed.
10.3. However, we direct the respondents that in future recruitment advertisements w.e.f. 01.01.2025, whenever such recruitment process is initiated, a provision may be made in form of a window of about 7 to 15 days for making corrections/addition/alteration in the application forms which are already submitted only to avoid unnecessary litigations, which not only leads to multiplicity of litigations but also puts burden on public exchequer as well as this Tribunal and Hon'ble Courts to 26 (C-5, Item -95) OA No. 1951/2020 & Batch adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of such selection/recruitment process.
10.4. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/