Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The aforesaid considerations which must necessarily guide the evaluation of challenges to selection and recruitment were reiterated recently by the Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan7.

Dealing with a similar claim for rectification in application forms submitted in the course of a selection process for Shiksha Nideshaks, a Division Bench of the Court in Arti Verma Vs. State of U.P.8 observed:-

"In the present case, the appellant claimed the benefit of Freedom Fighters category. The contention that this was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made on line. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a result of human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. No fault can, therefore, be found in rejecting the application for correction when the candidate himself has failed to make a proper disclosure or where, as in the present case, the application is submitted under a wrong category. Interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly not warranted in such matters as it creates grave uncertainty since the selection process cannot be finally completed."
"The instructions provided to the candidates were clear and specific. Even if there was a human error, but since the examination was taken OMR sheet and the information regarding Question Booklet Series was to be provided by darkening the corresponding circle on the OMR sheet and having regard to the fact that evaluation of answer sheets was to be done by electronic scanning device, which was duly communicated to the candidate in advance, the grievance now raised could not be considered. There would be large number of other candidates having same or similar grievances, in which also same relief would have to be granted thereby derailing the entire process. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find it a fit case to interfere at this stage in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution."