Trivial errors in application forms should not disqualify candidates from public employment, especially when no malafide intent is present, balancing justice with administrative efficiency.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant claiming the following relief(s):-

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may most gracious enough to accept and allow this appeal while quashing and set aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in S.B.C.W.P. 10878/2024 titled as Reena Choudhary & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors, and the prayers of the writ petition may kindly be allowed as prayed by the appellant- petitioner. In alternate if during the pendency of the writ petition or otherwise the lower meritorious candidates then the petitioner, in Female Non Tsp Category had given appointment for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade then same may be quashed and setaside.”

2. The controversy arose during the direct recruitment for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade in pursuance of the Advertisement No.1/2023 initiated by the respondent-Department for TSP and non-TSP areas under the provisions of Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (‘the Rules of 1966’) read with Section 210 of the Amended Rules 2013 and the Amended Rules 2021. There were total 1262 posts for the non-TSP area. The eligibility criteria and all other necessary details were prescribed in the Advertisement as per the Rules. The appellant having the eligibility qualification for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade and having registration with Rajasthan Ayurveda Nursing Council along with a diploma in Ayush Nursing and Pharmacy applied online for the non-TSP area. Thereafter, an occasion arose for correction in the application forms whereby, the appellant went on to correct the year of diploma in the necessary examination.

3. Mr. K.R. Saharan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that such correction was made, inadvertently, whereby the non- TSP category got converted into TSP category. It was only at the time of document verification, which took place from 02.07.2024 to 07.07.2024, that the appellant found that she was not in the non-TSP category and her name has been included in the TSP category. The appellant immediately approached the respondents but her grievance was not redressed. The appellant admittedly stood in the merits of the non-TSP category for the post in question, however, less meritorious candidates were offered appointment for the same.

3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a bona fide and trivial mistake that happened during the course of correction in the application form whereby the correction was supposed to be limited to the year of qualification, however, the column of TSP and non-TSP got affected and thereby the originally correct information of non-TSP category got converted into TSP category. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant secured 51.13% and was placed at Serial No.19 in the OBC category notwithstanding which, the less meritorious candidates were given appointment.

3.2. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.1 of 2024, SLP (C) No.12230 of 2023) decided on 02.01.2024, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

“20. In one of the cases cited as a precedent in the counter affidavit, before the High Court, Pankaj Paswan vs. State of Bihar Anr., 2015 SCC On Line P atna 8739, the State had taken a defence that many candidates applied in more than one place and hence there could be deliberate tweaking in the date of birth to take advantage of the selection process in more than one district or region. It is very important to notice that there is no such plea taken in the present case. If any such device or trick had been adopted, the State would have easily detected the same and placed the same before the Court. The fact that the same has not been done shows that there was no trick or device resorted to by the appellant. It is a trivial err