The concession given by a counsel will not bind the client if it goes against the terms and conditions contained in the notification. Additionally, once a candidate has participated in a selection after knowing the terms and conditions, they will not be allowed to wriggle out of the same subsequently.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in Rev.Apln No.7/2021: Review Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to review the order dated 7.02.2020 in W.P.No.2410 of 2020 passed by this Court.

Prayer in Rev.Apln No.8/2021: Review Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to review the order dated 21.02.2020 in W.P.No.4209 of 2020 passed by this Court.

Prayer in Rev.Apln No.9/2021: Review Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to review the order dated 21.02.2020 in W.P.No.4211 of 2020 passed by this Court.

Prayer In Rev.Apln No.10/2021 :- Review Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to review the order dated 24.02.2020 in W.P.No.4592 of 2020 passed by this Court.

Prayer in Rev.Apln No.11/2021 :- Review Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to review the order dated 28.02.2020 in W.P.No.5205 of 2020 passed by this Court.)

1. The issue involved in all these petitions are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and finally disposed through this common order.

2. The respondents in these review petitions filed writ petitions challenging the order passed by the 5thpetitioner is these petitions and for a consequential direction to permit them to correct the mistake that occurred while mentioning the District of domicile in the online application submitted by them.

3. The 1stpetitioner issued a notification calling for applications to fill up the post of constables (GD) in CAPFS, NIA and SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2018. The respondents succeeded in the written examination, physical test and in the medical test. However, their candidature was rejected by the 5thpetitioner on the ground that they have not given the correct information under the column District of Domicile. The District of domicile mentioned in the application and the one that was mentioned in the certificate produced by them were in variance. The particulars of the same is shown by way of a tabular column hereunder:

4. This Court without going into the merits of the claims made by the respondents, based on the concession given by the CGSC, allowed the writ petitions and permitted the respondents to carry out the corrections and further directed to proceed further with their selection in accordance with the notification.

5. These review petitions have been filed mainly on the ground that the concession was not given by the Central Government Standing Counsel after getting instructions from the petitioners and such a concession goes completely contrary to the terms and conditions of the notification issued by the 1stpetitioner and that it will have wide ramifications in view of the fact that it is a pan India selection.

6. Mr. R. Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India (hereinafter called as “ASG”) , appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the notification published by the 1stpetitioner in more than one place has clearly mentioned that the candidates must be very careful and should exercise due diligence while filing the online application and under no circumstances the change of domicile State and District will be entertained by the commission after submission of the appli