The administrative authority must rectify bona fide errors in documents and cannot reject candidacy based on discrepancies beyond the applicant's control, especially when eligibility criteria are met.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

“1- By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to issue appointment order for the post of soldier (GD) and he may also be permitted to join the same from the date of issuance of the provisional select list for the post of soldier (GD) on the basis of merit list of CEE held of 27.11.2016 with all consequential benefits considering his service from the date of his provisional selection.

2- By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

3- Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. The facts as averred in the writ petition are that certain vacancies of Soldiers were reserved under Unit Headquarter Quota (UHQ)/Regimental Centres for Sons of War Widow, Sons of Widow, Sons of Serving Soldier, Sons of Ex-Servicemen and Brother of Serving Personnel.

3. As the petitioner’s brother Baburam was already enrolled with the army in the year 2008, the petitioner being eligible in the said quota, applied and even found place in the provisional select list. However, at the stage of document verification, it was found that the date of birth as mentioned by the applicant/petitioner in his application form was 08.03.1997 whereas his date of birth as submitted by his brother Baburam, in his relationship certificate at the time of entering into service, was 05.05.1998. There being a discrepancy in the date of birth, the petitioner was held not entitled for appointment and hence, vide order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure-14), his candidature was cancelled.

4. It is relevant to note that order dated 03.01.2017 was communicated to Baburam and not the petitioner. However, prior to order dated 03.01.2017 been passed, an application for change of date of birth of the petitioner was filed by Baburam on 04.11.2016, that is, even before the common entrance examination been conducted.

5. Vide communication dated 17.01.2017 (Annexure-R/9), the application as filed by Baburam for correction in the date of birth of his brother, was forwarded by the competent authority for reconsideration. However, the same remained undecided and hence, an application was filed by Baburam before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in the year 2017 itself.

6. It is relevant to note at this stage that meanwhile a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.398/2018 was filed by the petitioner before this Court with a prayer for direction to be appointed as a Soldier in the Unit Headquarter Quota but, as the application filed by his brother before the AFT for correction in date of birth remained pending, the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed however, with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner sympathetically keeping into mind the prayers made by his brother in the application as filed before the AFT.

7. Vide order dated 16.11.2018, the application as filed by Babu Ram stood allowed by the AFT and it was directed that the date of birth of the petitioner be amended/corrected in the service record of Babu Ram and a fresh relationship certificate to the brother of the applicant i.e. the petitioner, was directed to be issued.

8. Despite the application been allowed by the AFT, the respondents did not offer appointment to the petitioner on the count that the vacancies were surrendered by the Department way back in the month of February 2017, aggrieved of which the present petition has been filed.

9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a clear case of a bonafide error which fact was affirmed by the AFT. When once the AFT directed for change of date of birth of the petitioner, the same definitely had a retrospective effect and in pursuance to the same, the petitioner who had otherwise found place in the select list, ought to have been afforded appointment.

10. Cou