Trivial mistakes in application forms should not disqualify candidates from selection processes, especially when original documents verify their claims.

ORDER :

(Pranav Trivedi, J.)

1. Both these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the correctness and validity of the common order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 515 of 2024 and 518 of 2024. Since in both the appeals a challenge is to a common order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are inclined to take both the appeals for adjudication.

2. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 188 of 2024 the respondent – original petitioner had applied for the post of Anganwadi worker at Jambusar Baria Faliya, Village Jambusar, Taluka : Devgadh Bariya. Pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had mentioned total marks scored in Semester-I examination of a degree course as 800 marks instead of 900 marks. On the basis of such mistake, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.

3. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 189 of 2024, the respondent – original petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Anganwadi Worker at the Anganwadi Center at Jambusar Sarpanch Faliya, Village Jambusar, Taluka : Devgadh Baria, District Dahod. In this case, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the candidate had secured 547 marks out of 900 marks whereas, in online application form, it was reflecting as 647 marks out of 900 marks. Thus, on the basis of such observation. the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.

4. The rejection of candidature of both the petitioners was challenged before the learned Single Judge by preferring writ petitions. The writ petitions were preferred on the ground that mistakes were trivial and only a typographical error. Therefore, such bona fide mistake should not result into rejection of candidature. A further ground was also taken that despite the fact that they could have applied only on one center, the candidates have applied in various Anganwadi Centers. On the basis of such fact, the whole merit list was challenged in the petitions. However, the leaned Single Judge after going through the arguments and submissions canvassed by both the learned advocates, had gone only on the aspect of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the sides had concluded the fact that mark-sheets have been uploaded along with the documents in question, it would become apparent that error which was committed by the candidates was a mere bona fide typographical error. Thus, it was further observed that the mistake so made by the petitioner was a procedural irregularity and not an illegality and, therefore, when the copies of the certificates were also annexed with the application form, it could not have construe that the petitioners were attempting to have any disadvantage erroneously, stating wrong marks. On this count, the writ petitions were allowed and the appellants were directed to redo the whole selection process. It is this common order passed by the learned Single Judge which is assailed by the appellants in the present appeals.

5. We have heard Mr. Nisarg Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Meet Kakadia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Ms Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent – State.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Jani for the appellants has made an attempt that the marks shown by the respondent in the online application form was an deliberate attempt to get the benefit in the selection process. It was not a trivial error. Learned advocate Mr. Jani has taken us to the contents of the advertisement and contended that as per the advertisement, once information as given by the candidate is wrong, then automatically their candidature would stand rejected. Learned advocate Mr. Jani has also taken us to the conditions along with the application and in particular, conditions nos. 2, 3 and 11 and submitted that the candidate would not be in a position to