Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Prakash Paswan and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary, Staff Selection and Others – Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 1721 of 2020
Decided On : 06-01-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 16, 226 – Candidature cancelled – District of domicile – Petitioners applied for appointment on post of Constables. – Petitioners filled up on line application Form as well as in drop down menu. – Petitioners were allowed to appear in said examination. – At time of document verification and verification of Form, it was detected that petitioners have wrongly filled domicile of District as Hazaribagh in place of Chatra. – Candidature of petitioners were cancelled. – Aggrieved with this, petitioners have approached this Court praying therein to correct District of domicile in their online application Form as well as drop down menu. – Held, It has been clearly indicated that if domicile is wrongly indicated, candidature will be cancelled forthwith. – In plethora of judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once procedure for appointment has been indicated, that needs to be followed and one of judgment relied by Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for respondent-Union of India in case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra) is on same line. – It is also well settled provision of law that once a candidate appeared after knowing entire criteria of appointment and participated in examination, he is estopped from raising any grievance. Subsequently, judgment relied by Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for respondent-Union of India in case of Nitish Kumar Pandey (supra) is also on same line. – So far judgment relied by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners of Madras High Court is concerned that order has been passed on concession provided by learned counsel appearing for Central Government. So far judgment relied by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners of Bombay High Court is concerned on ground of bona-fide mistake, that has been allowed by Bombay High Court, however, this aspect of matter has not been considered in that judgment as to whether procedure has been prescribed in advertisement that will govern or any concession can be granted under Article 226 of Constitution of India. – Two judgments relied by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners is not helping petitioners. – Argument of Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners that Articles 14 and 16 is also not being accepted by Court in view of fact that negative equality cannot be allowed in favour of any person – Petition Dismissed
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondent to make correction in the domicile of the petitioners from District Hazaribagh to Chatra.
4. Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi published the notice of examination for recruitment of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), National Investigation Agency (NIA), Secretariat Security Force (SSF) and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifle on 21.07.2018 in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar. The name of examination is Constables (GD) in CAPFs, NIA and SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Exam, 2018 (hereinafter referred to Constable GD Examination, 2018) The said notice was also uploaded in the SSC website on 25.07.2018.
5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners applied for appointment on the post of Constables. The petitioners filled up on line application Form as well as in the drop down menu. The petitioners were allowed to appear in the said examination. At the time of document verification and verification of Form, it was detected that the petitioners have wrongly filled domicile of District as Hazaribagh in place of Chatra. Thereafter, the candidature of the petitioners were cancelled. Aggrieved with this, the petitioners have approached this Court praying therein to correct the District of domicile in their online application Form as well as drop down menu.
6. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned action on the ground that the petitioners have bonafidely and mistakably fill up the Form wherein they have indicated domicile of District Hazaribag in place of Chatra. The petitioners are having domicile certificate of Chatra but that has not been filled and the petitioners were allowed to participate in the examination and they have been selected and at the time of verification of credentials, it was detected. Thereafter, the candidature of petitioners were rejected. He submits that it was bona-fide mistake and that can be corrected at this stage also. To buttress his argument, by way of relying one order of Madras High Court passed in W.P. No. 5205 of 2020 he submits that the Madras High Court has allowed the correction of domicile of District in that case and the case of the petitioner is on the similar footing. He submits that in the light of the same, the prayer of the petitioner may kindly be allowed. He further relied the order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 4761 of 2020 and submits the Bombay High Court has allowed the petitioner of those case to correct the application Form with regard to District of domicile. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of two orders of Madras High Court and the order of Bombay High Court respectively.
7. Per contra, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India submits that the case of the petitioners is fit to be rejected only on the ground that in the advertisement the entire procedure has been reflected wherein so many times in so many columns, it has been stated that after online application Form, no correction will be allowed to be done. He refers to column no. 17 and submits that candidates were required to select their domicile District from the drop down menu as well as on line and in the next column, they were again required to verify the domicile District from the drop down menu. He submits that both entries were independent of each other and the system would accept information about the domicile District of the candidates only if t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
