IMPORTANT POINT
Candidates are responsible for the accuracy of information in their application forms, and the terms and conditions of the advertisement cannot be changed or altered.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police as he obtained 277.79212752 marks, whereas the last selected candidate has obtained only 240.0762118950 marks in the category of Scheduled Caste. Further, prayer has been made for quashing the decision as contained in important Notice dated 27.06.2018 (Annexure-14) issued by the respondent No.4 in respect of Jharkhand Combined Police Sub-Inspector Competitive Examination, 2017, whereby and whereunder the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police only on the ground that the name of the University mentioned in the application form was different from the educational certificates of the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. An advertisement being Advertisement No.05/2017 was floated by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, inviting application form for filing up the vacancy of Sub-Inspector of Police in different Districts of State of Jharkhand. Pursuant to the same, petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste Category and being eligible, applied for the same. The petitioner did his B.Sc. from Veer Bahadur Singh Purwanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P), but inadvertently and due to overload on server of the website, in column of Educational Qualification (Graduation) in place of Veer Bahadur Singh Purwanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P), name of Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, IPU Delhi was mentioned. Thereafter, admit card was issued and petitioner appeared in the recruitment process and declared successful in P.T. Examination, Main Examination and Physical Test and Medical Test. Subsequently, he was called for verification of certificates as mentioned in the application form, wherein certain defects were pointed out and as such, petitioner was directed to produce relevant certificate on or before 31.05.2018. On 31.05.2018, the petitioner produced all the documents including the certificate of graduation and the local resident certificate. Accordingly, on 27.06.2018, the results were published, wherein the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that name of the University mentioned in the application form was found different than the original certificate produced by the petitioner vide important Notice dated 27.06.2018 though the petitioner obtained more marks than the last selected candidate under his category. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to S.C category and due to inadvertence, in the application form for the Jharkhand Police Sub Inspector Competitive Examination 2017 being Advertisement No.05/2017, he has wrongly filled the University name as ‘Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, IPU Delhi in place of Veer Bahadur Singh Purwanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P) as the petitioner filled up his online application form on the last date i.e. on 18.08.2017 and there was overload on server of the website of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and as such, this error was committed. The said error was a bona fide error, which would be evident from the fact that the certificate of graduation issued by Veer Bahadur Singh Purwanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P), submitted by the petitioner at the time of document verification. He further submits that petitioner had obtained more marks than cut off marks of S.C. Category and 97 seats are still vacant, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner gets the appointment to the said post. Considering the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents could have easily corrected and ignored the error committed by the petitioner.

4. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC submits tha