INDIRA BANERJEE, J

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 11/11/2016, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for admission to the National Defence Academy has been cancelled on the ground of furnishing incorrect information about the actual date of birth of the petitioner, in his application, and the petitioner has been informed that the petitioner had rendered himself liable for disciplinary action as per Rule 3 (3) of the Examination Notice No. 02/2016 – NBA – 1 dated 02–01–2016.

2. The Union Public Service Commission, being the respondent No. 2 published the said notice dated 02/01/2016, inviting applications inter alia for various posts in the Army wing of the National Defence Academy.

3. Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner applied online and was given the registration ID 11603758247. A copy of the application form has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 3. According to the petitioner, at the time of downloading the admit card for the written examination, the petitioner noticed that his date of birth had erroneously been entered as 11th of July 1998 instead of 10th of July 1998. The petitioner duly applied for rectification of the error in the date of birth.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner appeared for the written examination, which he successfully cleared, after which, he was called for an interview. The petitioner successfully cleared the interview as well as the medical test. However, the petitioner was not allowed to rectify the error in the date of birth. Instead, the impugned order was issued, cancelling the candidature of the petitioner, on the purported ground that the petitioner had furnished incorrect information in the application form with regard to the his date of birth.

5. The short question raised in this writ application is, whether the candidature of the petitioner, ought to have been cancelled on the ground of an error in typing his date of birth in the online application, after he had cleared the written test, the interview and the Medical Examination successfully. It is not in dispute that the difference was only of one day, and that the petitioner did not derive any benefit whatsoever, by reason of the difference.

6. There can be no doubt that a candidate applying for a government job, or for that matter, any job should fill in the application form carefully. No candidate can claim any vested right to rectification of arrears in an application. Union Public Service Commission and the State Public Service Commissions deal with lacs of applications, which are received pursuant to an advertisement. Such applications are required to be processed within a short time. A candidate, who is not short-listed and/or not allowed to participate in the selection process by reason of his own laches in making careless mistakes, cannot claim any right to be allowed to participate in the selection process.

7. It is for the body conducting the selection process to decide whether mistakes should be allowed to be rectified, if so, whether they should be rectified within any specific time and what are the mistakes which can be allowed to be rectified and other similar questions. However, in view of the mandate of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India, there should be no discrimination or arbitrariness in deciding these questions. All candidates applying for the particular post/posts should be treated equally.

8. This is not a case where the petitioner had not at all been short-listed. It is not a case where the petitioner has not been allowed to participate in the selection process. The petitioner had been allowed to participate and had emerged successful in every stage.

9. It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/or mis-representation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the sel