In recruitment processes, trivial errors in application, like incorrect date of birth while meeting eligibility, do not necessarily preclude participation unless the selection process is finalized.

JUDGMENT :

The Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.674 of 2019 has arisen in a very unfortunate situation when the appellant herein lost an opportunity to participate in the interview for the post of the Assistant Director of Horticulture owing to an inadvertent error in entering his date of birth in the application form called for by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'TNPSC') vide its Notification dated 25.10.2018.

2. TNPSC, on its part, has filed W.A(MD)No.839 of 2019 challenging the entire order of the learned single Judge dated 09.05.2019 in W.P(MD)No.8213 of 2019.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank in the Writ Petition.

4. The relevant facts may be briefly stated:

a) As outlined earlier, on 25.10.2018, TNPSC issued a notification inviting the applications from eligible candidates for the post of Horticultural Officer and also the Assistant Director of Horticulture. The application form has to be uploaded online and the selection process involves a written examination followed by certificate verification and then an interview.

b) The writ petitioner claims that he was eligible for both the posts and accordingly, he made his online application. In terms of the procedure, he could apply for both the posts in a single application. While filling up the online application, the writ petitioner had given his date of birth as 15.11.1992, whereas his actual date of birth was 15.03.1992. He sat for the written examination and scored adequate marks to be considered for the next stage.

c)The next stage was certificate verification. During the certificate verification, it was discovered that there is an apparent incongruence between the date of birth as stated in the application and the one that figures in the certificates of the writ petitioner. Wasting no time, TNPSC rejected the candidature of the writ petitioner.

d) This came to be challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8213 of 2019. The learned single Judge vide order dated 09.05.2019, partly allowed the petition, but, dismissed the other part. To explain it, so far as the application for the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture is concerned, the learned single Judge dismissed it, whereas the post of Horticultural Officer is concerned, the learned single Judge allowed it.

e)The line of reasoning of the learned single Judge was that at the time when he disposed of the Writ Petition, interview for the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture had already been completed, whereas for the post of Horticultural Officer, it was yet to be completed. But, what is significant here is the decision of the learned single Judge was taken for the only error the writ petitioner had committed in the one consolidated application that he had made for both the posts.

f) Pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, the writ petitioner was called for an interview for the post of Horticultural Officer, but, his result has been withheld.

5. It is in this setting, W.A(MD)No.674 of 2019 was filed by the writ petitioner challenging that portion of the order of the learned single Judge, which disallowed him for consideration for the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture. When the matter was moved before this Court, this Court vide an interim order in C.M.P(MD)No.5878 of 2019 dated 08.07.2019, had directed TNPSC to keep one seat vacant. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that even on 09.05.2019, the selection procedure was complete and the final list of selecte