UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANURADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Union of India questioning the order of the learned Single Judge made in SWP No. 2207/1999, dated 31.05.2001, whereby writ petition filed by the respondent seeking to quash order dated 21.01.1999 and directing the appellants to appoint the respondent for the post he applied namely post of clerk/typist was allowed.

(2.) The case of the respondent before the Writ Court was that he applied for the post of clerk/typist pursuant to the advertisement notice issued by appellant No. 2. The said application was scrutinized and she was assigned Roll No. 1132553 and she was asked to appear in the written examination for the post of clerk/typist. The respondent appeared in the written test for the said post, which was held in 1996, the result of which was declared in March, 1997. She was declared successful in written test, which was published in the newspaper. The respondent also appeared in the typewriting test, which was held in August, 1997. In the typewriting test also, she was declared successful and as such she was selected as clerk in Group 'X' in the SSC, which was also published in the newspaper. For getting the appointment letter pursuant to the selection, when the respondent approached the 2nd appellant, he suggested to wait for 2-3 months for getting appointment letter. No letter having been received, the respondent sent a representation to the appellants for which a reply was given stating that the selection has been cancelled on the ground that the appellant's result without exemption from typewriting test has been checked and it was found that she does not qualify the typewriting test of clerk grade and she also gave false information in her application form as if she is a physically challenged person, therefore, examination undergone by the respondent was cancelled. The respondent issued counsel notice on 10.03.1999 and called upon the appellants to give exact reason for cancelling her candidature.

(3.) No reply having been received the respondent preferred the writ petition by contending that in the application form she has mistakenly marked the column yes as if she is a physically challenged person and she has not enclosed any certificate to prove her disability and she having participated in the typing test and came out successful, mere error in filling up the application i.e. marking yes in the column of physically challenged person without any proof cannot be put against the respondent.