Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) The counsel for the applicant submitted that the only reason for not granting the age relaxation was that in the drop down menu the applicant has filled his experience from Andaman Nicobar (Union Territory) while the experience certificate so obtained by him is from Delhi. He submits that it is bonafide human error made by the applicant, there was no reason for him to fill his experience at Andaman Nicobar, Union territory, while he has worked all his life in GNCTD.

(3) He submits that irrespective of fact the applicant had filled Andaman Nicobar for his place of experience or GNCT Delhi both being union territories, the applicant is entitled for age relaxation of five years.

"5. We cannot loose sight of the fact that in view of the prevailing socio economic condition in our country, every citizen is neither net savvy nor has a computer or laptop readily available for use. In these circumstances, when such a candidate has to submit an application on-line he has to dependent upon the cyber cafés providing the net services. Being 2 of 3 himself/herself not computer and net savvy the candidate has to depend upon the operator in the cyber café to fill in online form and in such a circumstance if any mistake occurs it would be wholly unrealistic and arbitrary to make such a candidate suffer. It is also to be taken note of that if an incorrect entry is made due to human error, there is no provision on the website of the Commission allowing correction in the online application form. In these circumstances, if a mistake is committed, there being no provision for carrying out correction, even if it is noticed subsequently, a poor candidate is to suffer for no fault."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that even if the applicant had filled his experience from the U.T. of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, the said is a human error which is not fatal and the same could be condoned. He relies on the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 42130/2008 titled Sanjay Raj vs. State of U.P. & Others. The relevant Paragraphs of the same read as under :-

" In the present case, an educated young man who is at the threshold of his career has suffered serious prejudice by the impugned action of the respondents. 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 nrsm 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 marks in marksheet are final not the entry in application form. While filing the form humanerror can not be completely ruled out, especially, from inexperienced young candidates. Theyshould not be penaliszed 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. The 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 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 (All0. That was also a case of special B.T.C. Training. The candidate therein had also mentioned wrong marks in the form. The court had 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."

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant has in fact approached this Tribunal against an impugned communication placed as Annexure A-1. He submitted that the applicant was to follow the instructions clearly stipulated in the advertisement published for the vacancies in question (page 4 of the counter reply). Initially recruitment for the said post was advertised on 20.04.2021 and the closing date for the same was 13.05.2021, however, in view of the rising COVID cases, the selection process was kept in abeyance for some time and once again reactivated later with a new closing date of 29.07.2021. Moreover, the eligibility conditions, instructions and additional information with respect to the said selection process were uploaded at the website. Clause 3 of the said instructions dealt with the minimum essential qualification and Note-II provided that in the event of number of applications being large, the Commission would adopt short listing criteria to restrict the number of candidates to be called for interview to a reasonable number by using any or more methods noted therein. Clause (b) of the instructions further under the head „Important‟ read as under: