Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Pradeep Kumar vs General Manager N C Rly on 27 February, 2026
Reserved on 23.02.2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
th
This the 27 day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 930/2017
Prdeep Kumar son of Shri Subhas Chandra Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh
Resident of Village - Badevara Chaubey, Post- Jigana, District-
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Lal Ji Pandey
: Shri R. A. Prasad
Versus
1. The Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway,
Allahabad, through its Chairman
..........RESPONDENT
By Advocate: Shri K. K. Ojha
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Lal Ji Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K. K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) to quash the Panel For EMP Notice No. 01/2013 in respect of applicant bearing Roll respondent no.3, no. 1510387484 passed by the respondent no. 3.
(ii) to issue Order, Rule or Direction to the respondents to treat the applicant handicapped/viklang and select him for the aforesaid post in accordance with law,
(iii) to pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, ASHISH 1 KUMAR
(iv) to award the cost through out to the applicant.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued Advertisement No. 01/2013 for recruitment to posts carrying Grade Pay ₹1800 in PB-I (erstwhile Group 'D' posts). The applicant applied for the said post and possessed the requisite educational and other prescribed qualifications. He was permitted to appear in the written examination conducted on 02.11.2014, in which he was declared successful. Thereafter, the respondents issued a letter calling the applicant for document verification and medical examination, and the applicant appeared before the competent authority with all necessary documents. However, when the provisional panel was published, a remark was made against the applicant stating that he was not a "person with disability," and on this basis his candidature was cancelled. The applicant has stated that he is in fact a physically disabled person and has placed on record a valid disability certificate issued by the competent authority (Annexure A-5). It has further been submitted that his candidature was rejected only on the ground that in the application form he had inadvertently marked the disability category as "HH" (Hearing Handicapped), whereas his disability certificate shows that he belongs to the "OH" (Orthopedically Handicapped) category. According to the applicant, the recruitment notification was issued in English and since he belongs to a Hindi-speaking region, he mistakenly marked the wrong category without any intention to misrepresent facts. The applicant contends that the error was purely inadvertent and technical in nature and that cancellation of his candidature despite possessing a valid disability certificate is arbitrary and illegal.
4. On the other hand, the respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit as well as a supplementary counter affidavit denying the averments made in the Original Application. The respondents have stated that the recruitment notification clearly provided that if the category claimed by a candidate in the application form was found to ASHISH 2 KUMAR be incorrect at any stage of the selection process, the candidature of such candidate would be liable to be cancelled. It has been submitted that the applicant was only provisionally permitted to appear in the written examination and, after being declared successful, he was called for document verification and medical examination. During the process of document verification, it was noticed that the applicant had incorrectly mentioned his disability category in the online application form, and upon scrutiny of the documents submitted by him, it was found that the disability certificate produced by the applicant did not correspond to the category claimed by him in the application form. On this ground, the candidature of the applicant was cancelled in accordance with the terms and conditions of the notification. It is further contended that document verification is an integral part of the selection process and mere provisional permission to appear in the written examination does not confer any vested right upon the applicant to claim selection or appointment. In the supplementary counter affidavit, same facts have been reiterated. It has also been pleaded that the panel prepared pursuant to Notification No. 01/2013 has already been exhausted and, at present, no vacancy exists under the said notification. On these grounds, prayer was made to dismiss the instant OA.
5. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant reiterating almost the same facts as disclosed in the OA.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the discrepancy in the online application form occurred due to a mistake on the part of the applicant. It was argued that the disability certificate issued by the competent authority clearly shows that the applicant belongs to the "OH" (Orthopedically Handicapped) category, but by mistake he mentioned the category as "HH" (Hearing Handicapped) in the online application form. According to the learned counsel, this error was purely inadvertent and there was no intention on the part of ASHISH 3 KUMAR the applicant to misrepresent any fact or to obtain any undue advantage. It was further submitted that since the disability certificate produced by the applicant is genuine and issued by the competent authority, cancellation of his candidature merely on account of such a mistake is unjustified and arbitrary. Referring to the facts stated in the Original Application as well as in the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel argued that the applicant had successfully cleared the written examination and had otherwise fulfilled all eligibility conditions, therefore his candidature ought not to have been rejected on a technical ground. It was thus prayed that the Original Application be allowed and the respondents be directed to issue an offer of appointment to the applicant against the appropriate post in accordance with the disability category for which his certificate is valid. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on following case laws:-
● Judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. © 8415/2018& C.M.No. 32327/2018. Anuj Pratap Singh vs Union Public Service Commission and Anr. decided on 04.09.2018.
● Judgment and order passed by CAT, Delhi bench in OA. No. 597/2022 Nitish Kumar Vs Union Public Service Commission, decided on 21.03.2022.
● Judgment and order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W.P. No. 9338/2021 Poonam Pal D/o Laxman Singh Pal vs. Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank, decided on 15.03.2022
8. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no illegality in the action taken by the respondents in cancelling the candidature of the applicant. It was submitted that the applicant had clearly mentioned in the online application form that he belonged to the "HH" (Hearing Handicapped) category, whereas the disability certificate produced by him at the time of document verification shows that he belongs to the "OH" (Orthopedically Handicapped) ASHISH 4 KUMAR category. Learned counsel further referred to the disability certificate filed as Annexure A-5 to the Original Application and contended that even the genuineness of the certificate is doubtful, as several columns in the certificate appear to have been filled in or overwritten by the applicant himself, making it unclear whether the certificate was properly issued by the competent authority and whether it actually relates to the OH category. It was further argued that even if the issue of genuineness of the certificate is ignored, the fact remains that the applicant applied under the HH category while the certificate submitted by him relates to the OH category, and the recruitment notification clearly provided that candidature would be cancelled if the category mentioned in the application form was found to be incorrect. Learned counsel also submitted that mere provisional permission to appear in the written examination does not create any vested right in favour of the applicant for selection or appointment, particularly when the documents submitted by him do not correspond to the category under which he had applied. Therefore, it was prayed that the Original Application be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submission has placed reliance on the judgement and order passed by CAT, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 793/2016 (Satish Kumar vs. Union of India & ors) decided on 29.05.2023 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 16729/2023, decided on 02.11.2023.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.
10. Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it will be useful to quote the relevant paras of judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. The relevant para of Anuj Pratap Singh (supra) case is reproduced as under:-
20. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner herein had nothing to gain by filling up his date of birth incorrectly as 31.03.1991 instead of 30.03.1991, in the application forms for the CSE 2017. It is evident that the said error in his date of birth is wholly inconsequential particularly when the date ASHISH 5 KUMAR of birth mentioned in his matriculation certificate is 30.03.1991. It is also an admitted position that the respondents had permitted the petitioner to carry out corrections in his date of birth for the CSE 2016 at the stage of the interview by submitting an affidavit. Thus, we find no reason to disbelieve the explanation offered by the petitioner that he was under a bona fide belief that the change in his date of birth for the CSE 2017 could only be effected at the stage of the interview/personality test, by submitting the requisite affidavit. There appears nothing on the record that lends itself to the inference that the error made by the petitioner in mentioning hef birth incorrectly, was, in any way deliberate or wanton.
21. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the error on the part of the petitioner could not be treated as a misrepresentation or suppression of facts. We are of the considered opinion that a just and equitable approach needs to be adopted in the present case, especially in view of the fact the petitioner has already cleared the stages of the preliminary examination and the main examination and we are informed that he was permitted to appear in the interview/personality test for the CSE 2017. Moreover, in circumstances where the petitioner is an SC candidate and a qualified engineer from IIT, cancellation of his candidature at the final stage, would be a punitive action, completely disproportionate to bona-fide omission on his part.
The relevant para of the Nitish Kumar (supra) case is as under:-
5. In support of his claim, the applicant has mainly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anuj Pratap Singh vs. Union Public Service Commission [WP(C) No.8415/2018 & CM No.32327/2018 decided on 04.09.2018 arising out of Tribunal's decision dated 10.07.2018 in ΟΑ No.1358/2018], amongst others. He submitted that in the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court has reversed the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal by holding that the error on the part of the petitioner therein could not be treated as a misrepresentation or suppression O.A. No. 597/2022 of facts.
The applicant, therefore, seeks similar benefits as extended to the petitioner in Anuj Pratap Singh (supra).
The relevant para of the Poonam Pal (supra) case is as under:-
9 A candidate applying for a Government job should fill up the application form carefully. The candidate cannot claim any vested right of rectification of errors in application. When material discrepancy is noticed in the application form, the candidature may be cancelled even after the application has been processed and candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. But when a candidate has participated in the selection process and has cleared all the stages successfully, candidature should not be cancelled without careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse. The same cannot be done for minor omissions or errors.
ASHISH 6 KUMAR 10 The difference between the actual date of birth of the petitioner and the date filled by her in the application form was only of two days. The petitioner has not derived any benefit whatsoever on account of the said difference. The case of petitioner is not that she has not at all been shortlisted or has not been allowed to participate in the selection process. She has been so allowed and has emerged successful in every stage. Respondent has not looked into the trivial nature of lapse on part of the petitioner. It is not a case of concealment of any criminal prosecution by the petitioner or suppression of a like nature. It is also not a case of any deliberate misrepresentation on her part. The information wrongly given by the petitioner was not a very material information.
11. It is not the case of respondent itself that the petitioner has derived any advantage by entering the wrong date of birth in the application. There was no intentional misrepresentation on part of the petitioner as she had submitted her school Certificate. There is a difference between a mere inadvertent error and misrepresentation or suppression. Cancellation of candidature of petitioner on the ground of typographical error in her application form is hence arbitrary and grossly disproportionate to the gravity of her lapse.
The relevant para of the Satish Kumar (supra) case is as follows:-
9. In the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd and another Vs. Anil Kanwariya (Civil Appeal Nos.) 5743-5744 of 2021 decided on 17.9.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"8.1 In the case of Secretary, Department of Home Secretary Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu, 2005 (2) SLJ 233 this Court has observed that the object of requiring information in the attestation form and the declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. It is further observed that when a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service.
8.2 In the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttrakhand (2013) 9 SCC, 363 while joining the training, the employee was asked to submit an affidavit giving certain information, particularly, whether he had ever been involved in any criminal case. The employee submitted an affidavit stating that he had never been involved in any criminal case. The employee completed his training satisfactorily and it was at this time that the employer in pursuance of the process of character verification came to know that the employee was in fact involved in a criminal case. It was found that the final report in that case had been submitted by the prosecution and accepted by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. On the basis ASHISH 7 KUMAR of the same, the employee was discharged abruptly on the ground that since he was a temporary government servant, he could be removed from service without holding an enquiry.
The said order was challenged by the employee by filing a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court which was dismissed. The Division Bench upheld that order, which was the subject matter of appeal before this Court. Dismissing the appeal, this Court observed and held that the question is not whether the employee is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. It is further observed that the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information and in that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged. It is further observed by this Court in the said decision that where an applicant/employee gets an order by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law, "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal". It is further observed and held that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have defrauded or misrepresented themselves and in such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. The relevant observations in the said decision are in paras 12, 13, 18 & 25, which are as under:
12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged.
13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." [Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1: AIR 1994 SC 853.] In Lazarus Estates Ltd. V. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702: (1956) 2 WLR 502: (1956) 1 ALL ER 341 (CA)] the Court observed without equivocation that: (QB p. 712) "...
ASHISH 8 KUMAR No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything."
18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Supp (4) SCC 100 this court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, observed as under:
(M. Bhaskaran case, SCC p. 104, para 6) If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.
25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus - a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the maxim nullus commodum caprere potest de injuria sua lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the legal propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. [Vide Union of India v Major General Madan Lal Yadav (1996) 4 SCC 127:1996 SCC (Cri) 592: AIR 1996 SC 1340 and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056.] Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria non oritur). 8.3 In the case of Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2012(3) SLJ 289, this Court summarised the principles to be considered in a case where the appointment is obtained by misrepresentation and/or suppression of facts by candidates/appointees as under:
(i) Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.
(ii) Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents the appointing authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted.
ASHISH 9 KUMAR
(iii) When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry.
(iv) A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.
(v) The purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service.
(vi) The person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appoint or continuity in service.
(vii) The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.
(viii) An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement relating to his involvement in the criminal acquitted of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation case, conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was would make a person undesirable or unsuitable for the post.
(ix) An employee in the uniformed service pre-supposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
(x) The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing Constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of a Constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable."
8.4 In the case of Daya Shankar Yadav Vs. UOI 2011(2) SLJ 156, this Court had an occasion to consider the purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents. It is observed and held that the purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents is to ascertain the character and antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post. It is further observed that when an employee or a ASHISH 10 KUMAR prospective employee declares in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to character and antecedents, the verification thereof can lead to any of the following consequences:
"(a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal case (wherein he was convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for want of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer him employment (or if already employed on probation, discharge him from service), if he is found to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence/crime in which he was involved.
(b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the criminal case disclosed by the declarant related to offences which were technical, or of a nature that would not affect the declarant's fitness for employment, or where the declarant had been honourably acquitted and exonerated, the employer may ignore the fact that the declarant had been prosecuted in a criminal case and proceed to appoint him or continue him in employment.
(c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in the negative and on verification it is found that the answers were false, the employer may refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if already employed), even if the declarant had been cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is because when there is suppression or non-disclosure of material information bearing on his character, that itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant.
(d) Where the attestation form or verification form does not contain proper or adequate queries requiring the declarant to disclose his involvement in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate was unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings when he gave the declarations in the verification roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be found fault with, for not furnishing the relevant information. But if the employer by other means (say police verification or complaints, etc.) learns about the involvement of the declarant, the employer can have recourse to courses (a) or
(b) above."
Thereafter, it is observed and held that an employee can be discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment on the ground of ...suppression of material information or making false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case).
8.5 In the case of State of M.P. Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018) 18 SCC 733, when the employee participated in the selection process, he tendered an affidavit disclosing the pending criminal case against him. The affidavit was filed on ASHISH 11 KUMAR 22.12.2012. According to the disclosure, a case registered in the year 2006 was pending on the date when the affidavit was tendered. However, within four days of filing such an affidavit, a compromise was entered into between the original complainant and the employee and an application for compounding the offence was filed under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The employee came to be discharged in view of the deed of compromise. That thereafter the employee was selected in the examination and was called for medical examination. However, around the same time. his character verification was also undertaken and after due consideration of the character verification report) (じゅes his candidature was rejected. The employee filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging rejection of his candidature. The learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the said writ petition. The judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge directing the State to appoint the employee came appeal before this Court. After considering catena of to be confirmed by the Division Bench which led to decisions on the point including the decision of this upheld the order of the State rejecting the candidature of Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), this Court even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a the employee by observing that as held in Avtar Singh, have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate concluded case was made the employer would still and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate. After reproducing and/or re-considering para 38.5 of the decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), in paragraph 13. this Court observed and held as under:
13. In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to non- disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in para 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have antecedents of the candidate and could not be a right to consider compelled to appoint such candidate.
In the said decision, this Court also considered the conduct on the part of the employee in getting discharge on the basis of the compromise which was obtained within a period of four days of filing affidavit/disclosure. In paragraph 14, it is observed and the held as under:
14. In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him.
Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of CrPC, the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, specially in paras 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is ASHISH 12 KUMAR undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.
9. Applying the law laid down by this Court aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand the impugned order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge quashing and setting aside the order of termination terminating the services of the employee on the ground of non-disclosure/suppression of material fact and filing a false declaration and directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent- employee is unsustainable.
10. Apart from the fact that at the time when the respondent applied in the month of October/November, 2013 though he was already convicted by the competent court and was given the benefit under Section 3 of the Act 1958 only, he did not disclose his conviction, but even at the time when he filed a declaration on 14.04.2015 he filed a false declaration that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any court of law and relying upon such a declaration the appellants gave him appointment. Only on police verification/receipt of the antecedent's report from the Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur, the appellants came to know about the conviction of the respondent. Therefore, appellants were absolutely justified in terminating the services of the respondent."
10. Since the applicant has given false information in his application form, hence we are of the view that O.A. lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
The relevant paras of the Satish Kumar (supra) judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court in Writ A. no. 16729/2023 is as under:-
7.In view of undisputed facts, it cannot be denied that the petitioner had claimed vision handicap whereas he could not substantiate that claim on the strength of any certificate.
The certificates that the petitioner produced disclosed hearing handicap and locomotor handicap.
8.. Once the petitioner is found to have made a wrong declaration with respect to his status of reservation claimed, he was never entitled to any discretionary relief. 9 Seen in that light, the Tribunal has not erred in rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. We find no merit in the writ petition. Present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.
ASHISH 13 KUMAR
11. In the present matter, it is evident from the record that the applicant submitted an online application against Advertisement No. 01/2013 under the "HH" (Hearing Handicapped) category. The applicant has taken the plea that since he belongs to a Hindi-speaking belt and the advertisement was issued in English, he mistakenly applied under the "HH" category instead of the correct category. It is also clear from the record that the disability certificate produced by the applicant at the time of document verification shows that he belongs to the "OH" (Orthopedically Handicapped) category. The recruitment notification had clearly defined the disability categories such as "HH", "OH", and "VH", and the applicant himself has admitted that the notification was in English and that he had mentioned the category as "HH" in the application form. During document verification, the respondents cancelled the candidature of the applicant on the ground that the disability certificate submitted by him did not correspond to the "HH" category under which he had applied. Therefore, in the light of these facts and the settled principles of law, the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties are required to be considered in order to determine whether the prayer made by the applicant deserves to be allowed or rejected.
12. It is clarified at this stage that the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant do not provide any support to the applicant's case. In those cases, the discrepancies in the application forms were mainly related to incorrect disclosure of the date of birth, and in such circumstances the departments were directed to consider the candidature of the applicants and to issue appointment letters. However, in the case of Satish Kumar (supra), the candidature of the candidate was cancelled on account of incorrect disclosure of category in the online application form, and the Original Application filed against the said order was dismissed. The order passed in Satish Kumar (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, but the writ petition was also dismissed. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the candidate had claimed 'vision handicap' ASHISH 14 KUMAR whereas he could not substantiate that claim by submitting a certificate rather certificate submitted by the candidate disclosed him hearing handicap and locomotor handicap.. The facts of the present case are almost identical, as the applicant applied under the "HH" (Hearing Handicapped) category whereas the disability certificate submitted by him belongs to the "OH" (Orthopedically Handicapped) category. Therefore, in view of the judgment and order passed in Satish Kumar (supra) and affirmed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, we are of the opinion that the plea taken by the applicant cannot be accepted and the relief claimed by him cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Original Application lacks merit and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. All associated MAs stand disposed of.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ashish)
ASHISH 15
KUMAR