The judgment emphasizes the importance of rectifying human errors that do not affect third-party rights and the need for substantial justice over hyper-technicality.

JUDGMENT

anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'The Tribunal'), in the original application No.291/683/2013 whereby the original application filed by the respondent was allowed and the petitioner No.1-Union of India has been directed to give appointment to the respondent on the post of Group-D with all consequential benefits and the said exercise was to be carried out within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof.

2. Skeleton facts of the case are that the North Western Railway Recruitment Cell issued an advertisement No.02/2010 on 16.12.2010 by which the applications for recruitment on several posts of Group 'D' i.e. Track Man, Traffic Khallasi, Helper, Cleaner, Cook etc. were invited, in pursuance of the said advertisement, the respondent submitted an application under the category of Other Backward Class (OBC). after participation in the process for selection, he qualified in the written examination and appeared in physical eligibility test. Thereafter, he was called for the medical test, in which, he was qualified. Finally, respondent was found fit but, subsequently his candidature was rejected vide order dated 29.07.2013 issued by the Department of North Western Railway for the reason that the Postal Order submitted by him was not within limitation.

3. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the order of rejection of his candidature, submitted the Original application before the Tribunal pleading therein that the Postal Order submitted by him was well within the parameters and the amount of said Postal Order was received by the Railway Department and the same was also credited in its account but inadvertently, in the application form, the wrong year of Postal Order was mentioned. The respondent pleaded in the Original application that he personally approached the Office of Railways and requested that the amount of Postal Order was proper but by inadvertent mistake, the date of Postal Order was mentioned as incorrect, which he prayed to be corrected. The respondent further pleaded that the amount of Postal Order was received by the Railway authorities and after that he was allowed to participate in the process of recruitment and ultimately he was declared qualified but his candidature has been wrongly rejected only on a hyper-technical ground.

4. The petitioner No.1 i.e. Union of India opposed the averments made in the Original application filed by the respondent by pleading therein that as per condition No.8.11 of the advertisement, the respondent was ineligible to get appointment and his candidature was rightly rejected by the authorities.

5. after hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal while allowing the Original application filed by the respondent, directed the petitioners-Department to give appointment to him on the post of Group-D with all consequential benefits.

6. aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred present petition.

7. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the respondent is not entitled to get appointment in view of the provisions contained in Para No.8.11 of the advertisement dated 16.12.2010.The respondent has mentioned the details of the Postal Order issued on 20.01.2010 in his application form and as per Sub-para (XV) of Para 8.11 of the advertisement, the application form of the respondent was liable to be rejected on the ground of furnishing incorrect information by him. Counsel argued that in para No.7.4 of the advertisement, it is clearly mentioned that the Postal Order/Bank Drafts/Pay Order for payment of requisite fee issued prior to the date of advertisement or beyond the validity of six months, will not be accepted. Thus, in view of the conditions mentioned in Para Nos.7.4 and 8.11 of the advertise