AJAY KRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in these writ petitions are with regard to rejection of candidature for the post notified by the 3rd respondent on 21.7.2018. In W.P.(C) No.13433/2020, Ext.P3 is the notification. It is submitted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13433/2020 had submitted Ext.P4 application pursuant to the notification. It is stated that by an inadvertent mistake, the gender of the petitioner was wrongly shown as 'female' in the application. The petitioner was called for a written examination, the admit card of which is produced as Ext.P5. Thereafter, a call letter for a physical standard and efficiency test was also received by the petitioner, who participated in the said test. Ext.P6 is the report of the test. It was only at this stage that the petitioner became aware of the mistake in the application. Ext.P7 representation, therefore, was filed before the 3rd respondent. However, the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground of mistaken gender in the application.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mistake in the application was a result of an inadvertent omission which occurred in the Akshaya Centre when the application was uploaded and that the petitioner, who is otherwise fully eligible for participating in the selection, cannot be denied a chance to do so only on account of an inadvertent and insignificant error. A decision of the High Court of Rajasthan is produced as Ext.P9 and relied on by the petitioner. It is submitted that though Ext.P10 judgment was rendered directing a consideration of the issue in the light of Ext.P9 judgment, by Ext.P11 order, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected without considering any of the relevant facts. It was found that the notification was categoric that no corrections would be permitted after the submission. It is stated that the notices uploaded in the website had also specifically declared that requests for change of any data filled wrongly by the candidate in their online application forms like category, gender, domicile state/district, etc. shall not be entertained by the Commission. It is further stated in Ext.P11 that recruitment is made separately for 'male' and 'female' candidates and cut off marks and criteria are decided separately. It is stated that the change of data including that of gender at any stage of the recruitment would disrupt the normal recruitment process and cause serious administrative problems.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue has been decided in several cases and the High Court of Delhi had permitted the correction even in the date of birth where the mistake was purely involuntary and no advantage was derived from the same. A decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Dinesh Kumar,2008 1 KHC 715 is relied on to contend that the understanding of facts by a layman has to be considered by the court while deciding their conduct and highly technical interpretation should be avoided. It is, therefore, contended that the slight error is liable to be overlooked and the petitioner is to be included in the selection process which is ongoing.