Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Deepak vs Staff Selection Commission on 28 November, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on: 03.11.2023
Orders pronounced on: 28.11.2023
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. O.A. No. 986/2019
Deepak, S/o. Sh. Laxman Singh, Aged 20 years, R/o. Prem
Nagar Gali No.4, Delhi Road Near APS School, Charkhi
Dadri, Haryana - 127306.
(Group-C)
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. K. B. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, C.G.O
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
2. Staff Selection Commission through its Regional Director,
North Western Regional Office, Ground Floor, Kendriya
Sadan Block No.3, Sector-9, Chandigarh - 160009.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. V. K. Arya)
2. O.A. No. 060/983/2019
Deepak s/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan, aged 24 years r/o House No.
1375/31, Pragati Nagar road, Sonipat Haryana-131001.
...Applicant
2
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. K. B. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, C.G.O
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
2. Staff Selection Commission through its Regional Director,
North Western Regional Office, Ground Floor, Kendriya
Sadan Block No.3, Sector-9, Chandigarh - 160009.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. V. K. Arya)
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):
1. The applicants in the above captioned two Original Applications, who have applied for SSC Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level Examination 2017, are aggrieved by cancellation of their candidature by SSC on the ground that the date of birth shown in matriculation certificate does not match with the application filed by them. By way of these Original Applications, they have sought quashing of these orders of cancellation of candidature of the applicants as reflected (Annexure A-1) in the scrutiny sheet.
2. The relief claimed, the facts, the grounds and the legal issues contained in the aforesaid OAs are common, therefore, these Original Applications are being disposed of by a 3 common order with the consent of learned counsels for both sides. For the sake of convenience, the Original Application No. 986/2019 titled Deepak Vs. Union of India & Others is taken as a leading case for briefing the facts.
3. The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief:
(ii) Quash the decision of cancellation of candidature of the applicant as reflected in the scrutiny sheet (Annexure A-1) on the ground that the date of birth shown in Matriculation Certificate does not match with the application filed by the candidate though the month and date filled by the applicant is correct and only year has been mentioned as 1998 instead of 1999 and there is no effect on the eligibility of the applicant in terms of age, qualification and as the correction of the mistake in question shall not hinder or disrupt the selection process or effect the merit thereof as held in the similar cases by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ajaya Kumar Mishra vs UOI, judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 4 23.12.2016 in W.P(C) 11642/2016 and in Arkshit Kapoor v Union of India and Others W.P.(C) 3721 of 2017 decided on 31.07.2017.
(iii) Direct the respondents to consider his claim on merit under the selection process wherein he is participating and grant him appointment based upon his merit thereof with all consequential benefits while extending the benefit of ratio of law laid down in judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in cases of Ajay Kumar Mishra (Supra) and Arkshit Kapoor (Supra) to the applicant being similarly placed.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the Staff Selection Commission vide notification dated 18.11.2017 advertised various vacancies to be filled on regular basis including for the post of Lower Division (LDC)/Junior Secretariat Assistant (JSA). The total number of posts reflected were 898, which was later increased vide corrigendum dated 21.06.2019. The last date for submission of application was 18.12.2017. The applicant having possessed the requisite qualification of 10 + 2 duly submitted his online application, but while filling up his application form, 5 the birth year was erroneously written as 1998 instead of 1999. He submits that as per clause 6 of the advertisement the age prescribed was to be between 18 to 27 years as on 01.08.2018 (candidates born before 02.08.1991 and not later than 01.08.2000). The applicant opted for North West Sub Region (NWR). The applicant submits that he received his Admit Card (Annexure A-4) online and he noticed that his date of birth mentioned in admit card is 28.05.1998 instead of 28.05.1999 and after taking up the 1st Tier Exam, immediately he went to SSC Office in Sector 9, Chandigarh, where he was told that since his eligibility is not affected under any circumstances, the mistake of date of birth by him can be pointed out at the time of document verification, being not a serious issue and is a minor error.
5. The applicant submitted that the result of 1 st Tier was declared (Annexure A5) and the applicant received Admit Card for 2nd Tier Exam, he appeared in the same and result was declared (Annexure A6). The applicant again pointed out for correction of his date of birth, but was told that the same would be done at the time of documents verification. The applicant pointed out the mistake to respondent No.2 vide his e-mail dated 19.06.2019, which was replied by SSC (Annexure A8) as "We can't edit the form of the candidate. Can be corrected but you 6 should fall in age limit after correction" and that for important issues kindly approach to the office of the respondents or point out the same by writing a letter. The applicant then visited the office of the respondent No.2 on 27.06.2019 and requested for correction of his date of birth and he was orally told that it will be done at the time of document verification.
6. It is submitted that after passing the 1 st and 2nd Tier examination, the applicant received Admit card (Annexure A-9) for Documents Verification and Skill Test (Tier 3). The date for documents verification was fixed on 15.09.2019 and that of skill test was 16.09.2019. He submits that the cut off marks for general category was 199.00 and he secured 210 marks (Annexure A-11). The applicant went for document verification on 15.09.2019, wherein he produced all the documents and mentioned about the error on his part. He was not allowed to appear in the Skill Test (Tier 3) fixed for 16.09.2019 and his candidature was rejected in scrutiny sheet (Annexure A-1). He submitted a representation (Annexure A-12) and requested the respondents to accept his candidature and allow him to appear in the skill test, but he was not allowed to appear. The applicant contended that as per Clause 20 of the advertisement relating to the mode of selection, only after qualifying the Skill Test (Tier 3) the candidates were to undergo the documents 7 verification, whereas the documents verification in this case was kept earlier to the date of appearing in skill test. He contended that the error in question has no bearing on the eligibility of the applicant and he has been deprived of the opportunity to participate in his selection process.
7. The applicant contended that in view of judgment by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Arkshit Kapoor v Union of India and others, W.P(C) 3721 of 2017 (Annexure A13) dated 31.07.2017, the question relating to mistake in date of birth is no longer res integra, that mistake cannot be taken as the sole basis for rejection of the candidature of the applicant to public employment. Similarly, in O.A No.060/953/2019 Deepanshu v Union of India and others (Annexure A-14) this Tribunal vide order dated 12.09.2019 directed the respondents therein to allow the applicant therein to participate provisionally in further selection process subject to the outcome of the O.A.
8. The respondents filed written statement. It has been stated therein that as per para xii of the notice, it was clearly mentioned that the candidates must write their name, date of birth, father's name and mother's name strictly as given in the matriculation certificate otherwise their candidature may be cancelled at the time of document verification or as and when comes into the notice of the commission. As per para 17, titled 8 action against candidates found guilty of misconduct, it is mentioned that candidates are warned that they should not furnish any particulars that are false or suppress any material information while filling in the application forms. Candidates are also warned that they should neither attempt to alter or otherwise tamper with any entry in a document or the attested certificate copy submitted by them nor submit a tampered/fabricated document. It has been submitted that the candidature of the applicant was cancelled as date of birth shown in the Admit Card and as shown in the Matriculation certificate did not match and that the Commission functions within the ambit of Notice of Examination, as described above.
9. It is submitted that the applicant had admitted his mistake of not mentioning his date of birth correctly. Hence, his candidature had rightly been cancelled as per provisions in the Notice of Examination. Claim of applicant as per clause 20 of advertisement, that only those candidates, who were qualified in Skill Test were to appear for documents verification is contended by the respondent submitting that document verification of the candidates was scheduled one day before Skill Test. It was contended that the applicant was aware of his mistake committed, while filling up his date of birth, but he never informed the commission in writing about the same. It is 9 mentioned that as per para 21, Commission's decision is final. Respondents relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Karnataka Public Service Commission and others v B. M. Shankar and others. It was also contended that the order of CAT dated 12.09.2019 wherein the applicants were allowed to participate provisionally in further selection process was subject to the outcome of the O.A.
10. The applicant has filed rejoinder. It has been stated that the applicant belongs to Charkhi Dadri, where internet facilities are remotely available and he got his online application filled in cyber cafe, where a lot of similar persons were there. He submitted a representation dated 16.09.2019 requesting to accept his candidature and allow him to appear in the skill test. He contended that the error did not have any bearing on his eligibility, as according to the terms of examination notice, the age was prescribed to be between 18 to 27 years as on 01.08.2018 (candidates born before 02.08.1991 and not later than 01.08.2000) and the error was inadvertent while filling the online form. The applicant has relied on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ajay Kumar Mishra v UOI & Ors [WP No.11643/2016] dated 23.12.2016, Shubhan Tushir v UOI & Ors [WP(C) 9073/2019] dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure A12) and Arjun Partap Singh v UPSC [WP(C) 8415 of 2018] 10 dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure A11) and contended that his case is squarely covered by the judgments at Annexures A-9, A-11 and A-12.
11. Applicant further contended that time and again he requested to the respondents to correct his date of birth in the form but he was assured that it is a minor error and would be done at the time of documents verification and he has not concealed anything from the respondents. But at the time of document verification his candidature has been cancelled for the very same reason. He submitted that the respondents have rejected his candidature on the ground of simple technical error which is not intentional.
12. We have heard learned counsel on both sides and have gone through the material available on the file and judgments relied on by both the sides.
13. The controversy involved in the instant matter is (i) as to whether the decision of respondents for cancellation of candidature of the applicant in scrutiny list on the pretext that the date of birth shown in matriculation certificate does not match with the application filed by the applicant (though the month and date filled up by applicant is correct and only year mentioned as 1998 instead of 1999) is sustainable in the eye of law (ii) whether the mentioning of wrong birth year 1998 11 instead of 1999 has any effect on the eligibility of the applicant in terms of requisite age, which shall hinder or disrupt the selection process of applicant.
14. The admitted facts of the case are that the candidature of applicant for Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level Examination, 2017 was cancelled as the date of birth shown in admit card did not match with the date mentioned in the matriculation certificate. The applicant filled the date of birth as 28.05.1998 in the application form, whereas the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is 28.05.1999. The candidature of the applicant was cancelled by the respondents on the ground of suppression of fact of his date of birth stating that the decision of Commission in this regard is final and binding on the candidates and no enquiry/correspondence will be entertained by the respondents in this regard.
15. From the perusal of records, it is evident that vide Annexure A-1 online data verification sheet the respondents have rejected the candidature of applicant with the remarks that the date of birth is 28.05.1998 on Admit Card and as per original documents the date of birth is 28.05.1999. As per para 6 of the notice issued by the respondents dated 18.11.2017 for Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level Examination, 2017, the age limit to apply against the said notice is 18 to 27 years 12 as on 01.08.2018 (candidates born not before 02.08.1991 and not later than 01.08.2000). The wrong year of birth mentioned in application form and in his educational documents falls in the age limit fixed by the respondents. The applicant in support of his contention has place on record a copy of the Grade Sheet cum Certificate of Performance 2011-13 issued by the CBSE Board Delhi (Annexure A3), a copy of Mark Sheet issued by Haryana School Education Board, Haryana, a copy of Aadhar Card, a copy of Driving License, a copy of Elector Photo Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India and a copy of Pan Card. In all these official documents the date of birth of the applicant is mentioned as 28.05.1999. There is plethora of evidences to construe that the date of birth of the applicant is 28.05.1999. However, vide Annexure A-11, the applicant, while submitting his online application has mentioned his date of birth as 28.05.1998. We find that the actual date of birth of the applicant is 28.05.1999 and he had wrongly mentioned year of his birth while applying to the Combined Higher Secondary Level Examination, 2017 as 28.05.1998.
16. The respondents have taken recourse to the instructions at paragraph 23 (xii) of the Notice (Annexure A2) issued by the respondents, which stipulates that "The candidates must write their name, date of birth, father's name and mother's name 13 strictly as given in the matriculation certificate otherwise their candidature may be cancelled at the time of document verification or as and when comes into the notice of the commission." We have found that the applicant having noticed the error in year of his birth, i.e., 1998 instead of 1999 at the time of taking print out of the online application immediately communicated to the respondents on 19.06.2019 through e- mail that he has wrongly mentioned the year of birth as 1998 instead of 1999 and requested for correction of year of birth. He also attached a copy of class 10 th Mark Sheet in support of his contention. The respondents responded to the e-mail on the very same day stating that "We can't edit the form of the candidate. Can be corrected but you should fall in age limit after correction."
17. From the aforesaid reply, it is clear that any error occured in year of birth, while filling the form can be allowed to be corrected by the respondents, if candidates falls under the age limit as prescribed under para 6 of the notice dated 18.11.2017. The applicant has cleared 1 st and 2nd Tier of examination on merit and secured 148 and 62 marks respectively (Annexure A-11), total 210 marks, whereas the last cut-off marks is 199 for general category. 14
18. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant produced judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kiran Bala v State of Haryana and Ors [(2023) SCC OnLine P&H 640], Haryana Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary v Sarla and others [(2019) SCC OnLine P&H 5446], Savita v State of Haryana and others [(2019) SCC OnLine P&H 4649], Sukhmander Singh v State of Punjab and others [(2016) SCC OnLine P&H 4964], Kaptan Singh v Union of India & ors [CWP No.10407 of 2019], Hon'ble High Court of Delhi judgments in Bhawar Singh Gurjar v Union of India & Ors [W.P(C) 9715/2020], Vinayak Ishwar Bhise v Union of India & Ors [W.P(C) 6191/2020] and Ajay Kumar Mishra v Union of India & Ors [W.P(C) 11642/2016].
19. The applicant has further intimated the wrong mentioning of year of birth to the respondents, which shows his bonafide. There is no malafide on the part of applicant, who has qualified two Tier of examination. The case of the applicant is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kiran Bala (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court while allowing the Writ Petition directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner, who has inadvertently mentioned in the online application form to have applied under 15 the General Category instead of EPBGC category. The Hon'ble High Court in Savita case (supra) has allowed the writ petition of the petitioner and directed the respondents to determine the merit of the petitioner as per the details, which were allowed to be incorporated in the hard copy of online application form by the Interviewing Committee and to declare her result as per merit.
20. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Vinayak Ishwar Bhise (supra) has quashed the rejection order of candidature of petitioner, therein due to the mismatch between the date of birth filled by the petitioner in his application form and as appeared in the class 10th certificate, which was produced for verification after clearing the written examination.
21. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are satisfied that the mistake committed in filling up the year of birth is indeed bonafide mistake and the applicant did not earn any undue benefit by giving erroneous year of birth in respect of his candidature. In these circumstances, the respondents ought to have corrected their records on the basis of official documents produced by the applicant. The photocopy of all had been attached by the applicant at the time of submission of online application.
16
22. In the premise, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the O.As are allowed. The impugned order Annexure A-1 passed by the respondents cancelling the candidature of the applicant is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the date of birth of applicant, i.e., 28.05.1999 as the actual date of birth and issue appropriate order as they found fit in merits for appointment of the applicant to the said post, in accordance with law. A copy of this order be placed on the connected O.A No.060/983/2019 (RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA) Member (A) Member (J) bp*