Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The facts in brief as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioners applied for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019. The petitioners duly appeared in the examination on 06.01.2019 and the result was declared on 12.05.2020 in which all the petitioners have been declared qualified having obtained the qualifying marks prescribed by the respondents. The petitioners have committed some human errors with regard to filling of their B.Ed marks inclusive of B.Ed. Theory and Practical, with regard to filling of B.Ed Roll Numbers, with regard to filling of marks of Graduation, High School and Intermediate and with regard to filling of marks relating to 2 year B.T.C. Training Course.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the aforesaid human errors crept in the online application forms of the petitioners submitted by them online at the official website of the respondents. It is further argued that the mistakes committed by the petitioners are only human error. It is further argued that the direction be given to the concerned authority to decide the representation made by the petitioners as has been done in several cases by the different Coordinate Benches of this Court.

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. Moreover, in the present case, the appointment was of a contractual nature for a period of eleven months. Hence, considering the matter from any perspective, the learned Single Judge was not in error in dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

"Likewise, in Archana Rastogi v. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2012 (3) ADJ 219, the appellant had mentioned the marks obtained in the High School as '256' whereas he had actually obtained '356'. It is, in such circumstances, the Court directed marks could be corrected. Here also, there was only one candidate and no process by electronic scanning had been undertaken."

20. The error committed by the candidates cannot be said to be human in nature. The petitioners should have read the instructions that were issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to the marks obtained by them in their previous examinations. The contention that this was an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the petitioners, then this would result in a situation where the petitioners would get the benefit of a wrong if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed the petitioners could always turn around and claim that this was a result of a human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. From perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that the error/errors committed by the petitioners are neither minor nor are human error/errors.