IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim based on a certificate issued at a later date, without a genuine mistake, does not qualify for additional marks. The court emphasized the principle that law does not concern itself with trifles.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned Advocate Ms. Aditi Raol with learned Advocate Ms. Shikha Panchal for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Devang Vyas with learned Advocate Mr. Rituraj M. Meena for the respondents.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following prayers :

"24.(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not assigning 5 marks to the petitioner in spite of him possessing the certificate of proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD as per Clause 6.4 (1) and (3) of the advertisement no. 01/2019 as bad in law, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and thus violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting aside the same;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner 5 additional marks to the petitioner for possessing the certificate of proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD as per Clause 6.4 (1) and (3) of the advertisement no. 01/2019 and revise the merit list accordingly.

(C) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to keep one post of Assistant Technician (production) vacant;

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and/or further order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Technician (Mechanical) and Assistant Technician (Production) in a selection process conducted by the Respondent-ONGC, Western Sector, Gujarat State, pursuant to the advertisement No. 01/2019. It appears that while filling up of details in the online application, against the question whether the candidate possesses Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD, the petitioner had answered as ‘No’ and in an alternative question whether the candidate possesses National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT, the petitioner had answered as ‘Yes’. It is the case of the petitioner that in fact, the same was mistake committed by him since he had a certificate issued by the Ministry of HRD, as against the certificate which the petitioner had claimed that he had the certificate issued by the NCVT. It is the case of the petitioner that while the final score of the petitioner was 72.05%, which was not enough to secure a place in the select list, yet, according to the petitioner, had the certificate issued by the Ministry of HRD been considered, the petitioner would have been entitled for an additional 05 marks which would have resulted in the petitioner getting selected. Therefore, the petitioner has raised a grievance against the respondents for not considering the certificate issued by the Ministry of HRD.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for the petitioner would submit that the issue is in a very narrow compass, inasmuch as, the selection criteria indicated is, 85 marks for Written Test, 10 marks for Academic Performance and 05 marks for Apprenticeship Certificate. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the advertisement itself stipulated that a candidate possessing the National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT/SCVT or possessing a Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD, shall be given additional 05 marks for the post in question. It is submitted that in the online application form, the petitioner had stated about the petitioner possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT, as against the petitioner having stated that he does not possess Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the same was an inadvertent mistake. Learned Senior Advocate woul