Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

I have heard Sri Sidharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

Sri Khare submitted that the petitioner has secured total 1131 marks and he had annexed all the marksheets along with the application form and as such, the respondents ought to have considered his actual marks of Bachelor of Physical Education Examination which has been ignored by them. The respondents have relied only on the marks mentioned in the application form by the petitioner which has been inadvertently mentioned on the basis of pre-existing norms adopted by the State in respect of Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2004. He further urged that from the mark sheet there was no doubt that the petitioner was above the cut of marks. However, respondents have ignored the actual marks of the petitioner which has caused a serious prejudice to him. In case, there was any human error in the application form, he was entitled for an opportunity to correct the same or the respondents could have ignored the human error, as all the mark sheets were enclosed with the application form.

It is true that in the advertisement  a clear method for calculation of the marks is mentioned.  The petitioner, it appears, that  inadvertently ignored the said clause of advertisement. He had mentioned his marks on the basis of existing norms applicable in the years 2004 in Special B.T.C. Training Course. However, it is equally true that he has enclosed all the mark sheets along with his application form. While, calculating the marks, the authority concerned ought to have ignored the mistake of the petitioner or a notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner giving an opportunity to correct the obvious human error committed by him in filing up the form. One of the requirements was to enclose all the necessary documents and mark sheets. Statements of the marks in marksheet are final not the entry in application form. While filing the form human error can not be completely ruled out, especially, from inexperienced young candidates. They should not be penalized so harshly for such error. A candidate whose marks are above cut of marks and is in merit list, deserves an opportunity before his candidature is rejected only on some error. There was no element of misrepresentation and petitioner would not get any benefit for his act.

This Court, in the case of Kavita Rani Vs. State of U.P. and others, [ 2008 (4) ESC  2762 (All)], has  held  that in case there is any human error, in that event, it should be ignored. Likewise view has been taken in Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 83 AIR 1992(All). That was also a case of Special B.T.C. Training. The candidate therein had also mentioned wrong marks in the form. The court held that it was mere human error and was due to inadvertent mistake. There was no intention to gain anything by wrongly reflecting in application form.