Gauhati High Court
Shahanur Ali vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 5 February, 2021
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010067402020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2565/2020
SHAHANUR ALI
S/O. AKBAR ALI
VILL. 2 NO. JARAGURI
P.O. SIDAL SATI
P.S. MANIKPUR
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783383.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY TH SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA)
NEW DELHI-110003.
2:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NORTH EASTERN REGION)
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
LAST GATE BASISHTHA ROAD
P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF (RECUITMENT BRANCH)
EAST BLOCK-7
LEVEL-4
SECTOR-01
RK PURAN
NEW DELHI-110066.
4:THE ASSTT. COMMANDANT
Page No.# 2/5
BORDER SECURITY FORCE
DHUBRI
BSF CAMPUS ALOMGANJ
P.O. ALAMGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783339.
5:THE COMMANDANT CUM PRESIDING OFFICER
CENTRAL ARMED POLICE FORCES (CAPFs) BOARD
GROUP CENTRE CRPF
NINE MILE
GUWAHATI-22.
6:THE DETAILED MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD HEADED BY ITS
PRESIDING OFFICER
GROUP CENTRE CRPF
NINE MILE
GUWAHATI-22.
------------
Advocate for : MR R ISLAM
Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 05-02-2021
1) The extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought to be invoked by the petitioner in the present case who is aggrieved by rejection of his appointment as Constable (GD).
2) It is the case of the petitioner that the rejection is on a ground which is not only trivial but also something which is curable in nature by which no prejudice is caused to the respondent organization.
3) Before dealing with the issue in question, it would be convenient to narrate the fact of the case in brief.
4) Pursuant to advertisement dated 21.07.2018 issued by the Staff Selection Commission for recruitment of Constable (GD) in various para militaries forces, the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner, who was eligible in all respects, had applied for the same. Under the 'age' column, the candidates should be within 18-23 years as on 1.08.2018. It is further clarified that the candidates should not have been born earlier than 02.08.1995 and later than 01.08.2000. The applications were required to be submitted online. Pursuant to his application, which was submitted online, the petitioner was called for written test which was held on 18.02.2019.
5) The petitioner who belongs to unreserved category came out successful by securing more marks than the cut off which was 35%. On 13.08.2019 the physical fitness test was held, in which the petitioner was also successful and in the last leg, a medical test was held on 01.02.2020 in which the petitioner was found to be medically fit in all respects.
6) However, vide a rejection list slip dated 19.02.2020, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of mismatch of the date of birth in the online application. The representation of the petitioner having not paid any heed, the present writ petition has been filed.
7) I have heard Shri R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. The Union of India and the other contesting respondents are represented by Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC.
8) Shri Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection appears to be on absolutely trivial ground. While there is no dispute that the actual date of the birth of the petitioner is 04.10.1995, which appears from his Matriculation Certificate, while filling in the online application, the date of birth was typed as 04.07.2000.
9) However, at the time of verification with the original documents when the aforesaid anomaly was deducted the impugned Rejection Slip was issued. The learned counsel submits that the error which crept in while filling up online form online is a trivial one which occurred due to inadvertence and most importantly, the petitioner does not gain anything by putting a wrong date of birth in the online form in asmuchas taking the original date of birth into consideration also the petitioner becomes eligible Page No.# 4/5 to be appointed as per the advertisement. Shri Islam, learned counsel has also submitted that under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had interfered holding that for such trivial kind of anomalies, appointment should not be denied.
10) On the other hand, Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC submits that it is not a question of the nature of the anomalies but a question of violation of the stipulation made in the advertisement and the detailed manual for recruitment dated 27.12.2019. By drawing the attention of this Court to the said Manual which has been annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition, the learned CGC submits that it a mandatory requirement that the date of birth on the Matriculation Certificate should be the same as filled up in the online application, failing which the candidature will be cancelled. She accordingly submits that no fault can be attributed for issuing the Rejection Slip and therefore, this Court should not interfere with such decision. She further submits that the decision of another Court cannot be biding precedent and would at most be treated to have persuasive value and in any case the facts before the Delhi High Court cannot be said to be identical with the present case.
11) The rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have duly considered and the materials placed before this Court are carefully examined. Though, it is an admitted case that there was a mistake in filling up the form by the petitioner online by stating his date of birth to be 04.07.2000 instead of 04.10.1995, what requires to be examined is as to whether the petitioner was trying to gain or take any advantage by inserting a wrong date of birth.
12) To examine this issue what would also be relevant is that a certain age was prescribed to be eligible namely 18-23 years with a further stipulation that candidate should not be born earlier to 02.08.1995 and later than 01.08.2000 and there is no dispute that by taking the correct date of birth of the petitioner into consideration, he would still be found eligible to participate in the recruitment process.
13) Though the contention of Ms. Gayan, learned CGC that rejection would be justified for anomalies in the date of birth may be correct as a general case, in the Page No.# 5/5 present case what is to be noted is that in the Manual the said condition is also followed by the required age which has to between 18-23 years with the further clarification that the candidate should be born within 02.08.1995 and 01.08.2000.
14) In view of said clarification and particularly to the fact that the petitioner does not gain any advantage by putting a different date of birth in the online form, this Court is of the view that the impugned rejection is unreasonable. This Court is also of the opinion that the anomaly appear to be a trivial one when date of birth 04.10.1995 was written in online form as 04.07.2000.
15) This Court is further of the view that in cases of the present nature, the authorities may use their sound discretion and take a decision in spite of the clause where rejection of application is permissible.
16) In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner had surpassed different stages of examination, which would obviously involve verification of records and when the petitioner was finally found fit, issuing the rejection slip otherwise appear to be unreasonable.
17) Though, Shri Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the said decisions may not be necessary to be gone into in view of the reasons cited above while allowing this writ petition.
18) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned rejection slip dated 19.02.2020 is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to offer the appointment letter pursuant to his selection in terms of the advertisement dated 21.07.2018 without any further delay.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant