Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

At the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and this intra Court appeal is being disposed off finally.

2. Appellant has preferred this intra Court appeal challenging impugned order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Single Bench, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12391/2010 filed by the writ petitioner/respondent, Savita, has been allowed.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an Advertisement No. 3/2010 was issued by the appellant, which was published on 29.05.2010, inviting applications for the posts of Junior Scientific Officer, Junior Environment Engineer and LDC cum Data Entry Clerk. The facility of submitting application form through on-line was provided. The last date for submitting the applications through on-line was 15.06.2010 and signed copy, i.e. hard copy was to be submitted before 20.06.2010. The writ-petitioner initially filled the online form in respect of post of Junior Scientific Officer in place of post of Junior Environment Engineer. When she came to know about the error committed by her, then she approached the respondent to correct the name of post from Junior Scientific Officer to Junior Environment Engineer, but her request was declined. Thereafter, she approached the Single Bench by way of filing writ petition on 08.09.2010. The Single Bench vide interim order dated 09.09.2010 directed the respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in the written examination for the post of Junior Environment Engineer scheduled to be held on 12.09.2010. The writ-petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination. Thereafter, an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India was filed by the appellant for vacation of ex-parte interim stay order, which was dismissed by the Single Bench on 20.11.2010. The petitioner qualified for interview, therefore, on her application, an interim order was passed by the Single Bench on 20.11.2010 to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview provisionally for the post of Junior Environment Engineer against OBC quota, which was held on 23.11.2010. The writ-petitioner was interviewed and her final result, which was kept in sealed cover, was produced before the Court, which was seen, again sealed and returned to appellant. Learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions of the parties, came to a conclusion that due to human error, a mistake was committed by the petitioner by mentioning the post of Junior Scientific Officer in place of Junior Environment Engineer, as she is not even eligible for the post of Junior Scientific Officer. One post of Junior Environment Engineer was also kept reserved for the writ-petitioner. The Single Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to declare final result of the petitioner for the post of Junior Environment Engineer and to consider her name for the appointment, in case her name finds place in the order of merit in accordance with law. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid direction of the Single Bench, the appellant has preferred this intra Court appeal.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that last date for filing the form through on-line was 15.06.2010 and hard copy was required to be submitted before 20.06.2010. Since, the petitioner filled her form for the post of Junior Scientific Officer and she was not eligible for the said post, therefore, her application form was rejected. Subsequently, she filed an application to allow her to change the name of post, but since her application was not in time, therefore, it was also rejected. He further submitted that the Single Bench has wrongly held that it was a human error. He also submitted that learned Single Judge himself in Bhag Chand Verma Vs. RPSC & Others(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15289/2010) decided on 10.05.2011 took a view that such change in the application form cannot be allowed after expiry of last date for submission of form. He also relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 571/2004 decided on 13.04.2010 and judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. M.V.V.S. Murthy, 1987(Supp) SCC 371.

11. We have also examined the application of Neha Vyas, submitted by the writ-petitioner, whose application bears date 16.06.2010, but seal of employer shows that it was entered at Serial No. 5261 on 22.06.2010. Although, the appellant has tried to explain that this application was received before 20.06.2010 and it was entered only on 22.06.2010, but this fact is not disputed that last date of submission of on-line form was 15.06.2010. Similar examples have been given by both the parties in their Additional Affidavits and Counter Affidavit. One fact is clear that the writ-petitioner was not eligible for the post of Junior Scientific Officer and she was eligible for the post of Junior Environment Engineer. Learned Single Judge has recorded a finding of fact and we are satisfied that there was no concealment or suppression of material fact on the part of the writ-petitioner in respect of her qualification or any of the particulars. Learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that such error was a human error. In our view also, the error committed by petitioner was bonafide and much before the date of examination, the application for correction was filed.

16. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in case order of Single Bench is allowed to stand, then, other candidates, who approached the appellant, after the last date, for correction in their application forms and were not allowed to correct the same, may approach this Court for the same relief now, which has been granted to the writ-petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that during the course of arguments, the Officer-in-charge of the appellant, who is present in person in the Court, fairly admitted that the present process of selection took place in the year 2010 and thereafter, one another selection process has been completed and no other candidate, who participated in selection process of 2010, has approached this Court or is pursuing his case before the appellant. He also submitted that whatever representations were received by the appellant, the same had already been decided and as per his knowledge, no notice from any Court/Forum of legal proceedings has been received by the appellant. Even otherwise, learned Single Judge after considering submissions of parties and scrutiny of record, recorded a finding that such an error on the part of the petitioner was only a human error and we are also of the same view. Each case is ordinarily decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of that particular case.