Case Law Details
Sachin Kumar Vs Union of India And 4 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the order dated 29.01.2020, by which the petitioner was denied the opportunity to undergo the detailed medical examination for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2018.
The petitioner submitted that the recruitment advertisement prescribed an age limit of 18 to 23 years as on 01.08.2018, with three years’ relaxation for OBC candidates. He contended that he was eligible and had successfully qualified the written examination. However, he was denied participation in the detailed medical examination because the date of birth mentioned in his application form differed from the date recorded in his High School marksheet.
According to the petitioner, the discrepancy was a typographical error, as his date of birth had been entered as 12.01.1994 instead of 12.10.1994. He argued that no advantage was obtained from the incorrect entry, since he remained eligible for the recruitment process under both dates of birth. The petitioner relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court, and the Delhi High Court, where candidates had been permitted to rectify minor, bona fide errors that did not confer any undue benefit.
The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the terms and conditions of the recruitment advertisement did not permit correction of entries made in the application form. However, it was not disputed that the petitioner’s case was identical to the decisions relied upon by him.
After considering the submissions and examining the record, the High Court observed that the petitioner had not derived any benefit from the incorrect date of birth, as he was eligible to apply and appear in the examination under both the mistakenly entered and the correct dates. The Court held that the error was bona fide and purely technical in nature, and that the petitioner should be allowed to correct the date of birth. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court, and the Delhi High Court had taken the same view in similar matters.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the order dated 29.01.2020 and directed respondent no. 4 to arrange the petitioner’s detailed medical examination within 15 days from the date of submission of the computer-generated copy of the order after verification from the official website of the Allahabad High Court. If respondent no. 4 was not the competent authority, the Court directed that the papers be transmitted to the competent authority for compliance.
The writ petition was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard Sri Kranti Kiran Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an advertisement was published by Staff Selection Commission for recruitment of Constables (GD) in the Central Armed Police Force (CAPFs), NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as Examination, 2018). As per terms and conditions of the advertisement, age limit is 18-23 years as on 1.8.2018. Candidates should not have been born earlier than 2.8.1995 and later than 1.8.2000. Petitioner belongs to OBC category, therefore, he is entitled for minimum age of three years and accordingly, being eligible, he filled up application form. He next submitted that he was permitted to appear in written examination and qualified for the same and he was required to appear for detailed medical examination, which was denied to him on the ground that he has written incorrect date of birth in his application form, which is different in High School Marksheet. He further submitted that due to typographical error, his date of birth has wrongly been mentioned as 12.1.1994 in place of 12.10.1994. He also submitted that due to change of date of birth, he has not got any benefit for the reason that in both date of births i.e. 12.1.1994 and 12.10.1994, he would be eligible for submission of application form and mistake is bonafide, without any ill intention, therefore, order dated 29.1.2020 is bad and liable to be set aside.
In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court, this Hon’ble Court as well as Delhi Court in the cases of Archana Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No.3068 of 2020, Puspraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Special Appeal No.75 of 2013, Dharmendra Kumar and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others passed in Writ- A No. 6131 of 2020 and Sarita Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others passed in Writ-A No. 7016 of 2020 and Ravi Shesherao Rathod Vs. Union of India and another passed in W.P. (C) No. 2343 of 2020. In all the judgments, Apex Court, this Hon’ble Court as well as Delhi Court permitted the petitioners to rectify the minor error, which was bonafide in nature and petitioners have not taken any benefit of that.
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per terms and conditions of the advertisement, he cannot be permitted to rectify any entry earlier made in the application form and also placed reliance upon certain judgments of this Court, but he could not dispute this fact that case of petitioner is identical to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This fact is very well undisputed that by change of date of birth, petitioner has not taken any benefit and as per both the date of births, he would be eligible for submission of application form and further appearing in Examination, 2018. Mistake committed by the petitioner is bonafide and technical in nature and he should be permitted to correct his date of birth. The Apex Court, this Court as well as Delhi High Court has also taken the same view in such matters.
Accordingly, order dated 29.01.2020 passed by respondent no.4, Presiding Officer, C.R.P.F., Rampur, GC, C.R.P.F., Rampur, U.P. is hereby quashed and respondent no.4 is directed to issue necessary direction for conducting detailed medical examination of the petitioner within 15 days from the date of submission of computer generated copy of this order after verifying the same from Official Website of Allahabad High Court. In case, respondent no. 4 is not the Competent Authority, he shall transmit the papers to Competent Authority to comply the direction of Court given hereinabove.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Author Bio
