A typographical error in a candidate's application does not warrant disqualification from selection when it does not confer undue advantage and compliance with court orders is mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

(G. JAYACHANDRAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.)

This Writ Appeal is filed by the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, who partly allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the result published on 17.12.2018 containing the provisional list of candidates for the oral examination in the selection process of appointing Agricultural Officer(Extension) in Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3.The point involved in this case is that:

In the online application form, the Writ Petitioner entered her date of birth as 08.06.1992 instead of 18.06.1992.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, after she clearing her main exams, while verifying her certificates for considering her to invite viva-voce, rejected the candidature of the Writ Petitioner based on the instruction in the notification, since they found that there is an error in the date of birth. Her name was not included in the provisionally admitted list for oral test. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Arkshit Kappor .vs. The Union of India and others made in W.P(C)No.3721 of 2017, dated 31.07.2017 had held that inadvertent error in wrongly mentioning the date of birth, cannot be a reason to reject her candidature. Hence passed the following order:

"3.In view of the same, the Writ Petition stands allowed.There will be a direction to the respondent Commission to include the name of the Petitioner in the list of successful candidates in the written examination and conduct a oral interview for the Petitioner before concluding the selection process. No costs. Conseuquently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."

4.Despite this order, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has not called the Writ Petitioner for an interview. It has proceeded with the selection process and release the result of selected candidates on 01.02.2019 without complying with the direction of this Court passed on 08.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the non-compliance of the Court order, the Writ Petitioner has moved a contempt Petition and it was listed for hearing. Thereafter, the present Writ Appeal has been filed on the ground that the candidate who applied for public employment is expected to furnish true and correct particulars about the qualification, category of reservation, age, medium of instruction, physical qualification, other basic qualifications and eligibility criteria. In the instructions, it is clearly stated that incomplete application or application assigning wrong claims or incorrect particulars will be rejected.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when Clause 12-K and Clause 14.0 of the Instructions to the Candidate under the caption ‘’General Information’’ makes it clear that application with incorrect particulars will be rejected and any application submitted through online cannot be modified or rectified after the last date for receiving the application. While so, the Writ Petitioner even if by mistake or inadvertence filed the field meant for age as 08.06.1992 instead of 18.06.1992, she should have sought for the rectification or modiciation before the last date of filing th