JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. H. Bezbarua, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for Oil India Limited.

2. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to an Advertisement dated 21.08.2020, for filling up 36 posts of “Operator I (HMV) Grade VII” the petitioner took part in the selection process. However, the petitioner's candidature was rejected due to the petitioner having stated in his online application that he had passed his HSSLC examination on 20.5.2007, though in the HSSLC certificate, it was written as 22.05.2007. Further, in respect of his experience certificate, the certificate issued by the employer had given the petitioner's experience from the date 2.5.2016, while in the online application, the petitioner had given the date as 20.05.2016.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the mistakes committed by the petitioner in his online application were noticed at the tune the petitioner's original documents were examined. He submits that there was no intention to suppress any material facts from the respondents by giving a wrong declaration in the online application. He also submits that the giving of the wrong dates in the online application should not disqualify the petitioner from being considered for the vacant posts. He submits that the skill test i.e. Driving Test has not been conducted by the respondents till date.

The petitioner's counsel has thus prayed that the petitioner should be allowed to correct his online application and he be allowed to take part in the selection process. In support of his submission that the petitioner should be allowed to take part in the selection process, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Order dated 13.10.2020, passed by the Jaipur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 291/807/2015 with M.A. No. 291/471/2020, Sanwar Mal Yadav vs. Union of India through the General Manager and the Judgment dated 31.07.2017, passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 3721/2017 Arkshit Kapoor vs. Union of India and Others.

4. Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the Oil India Limited has produced the official records. He submits that there were 748 candidates/applicants who applied for the posts, out of which 136 passed the written test, which included the petitioner. Out of the 136 candidates, the petitioner and 21 others were disqualified, in view of the fact that the dates given by them in their online applications did not match with the dates recorded in their original certificates. He submits that if this Court were to condone the mistakes committed by the petitioner, than there would be an avalanche of cases for correction of the dates of the other 21 candidates. He further submits that the terms and conditions of the Advertisement clearly provided that all the details given in the online application form would be treated as final and no changes would be entertained. He also submits that the candidates were required to give a declaration that the particulars stated in the online application form were true and correct and if the information was incorrect, they would make no claim for appointment against the said post for which they had applied. He accordingly submits that the writ petition should be dismissed, as there was no infirmity with the respondents disqualifying/rejecting the petitioner from participating further in the selection process.

5. I have heard the counsels for the parties.

6. The Advertisement dated 21.08.2020 provides under sub-clause (iv) of Clause 6.0 Documents/Certificates/Testimonials and sub-Clause (iii), (iv) and) of Clause:

“9.0 “General Instructions” as follows:

“6.0 (iv) During document verification at any stage of the selection process, the candidature may be rejected if the documents/certificates/testimonials etc. are not found to be in order or as per our requirement. Further, in case it is detected that a candidate has furnishe