Candidates must accurately fill application forms; errors cannot be rectified post-submission to uphold recruitment integrity.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel assisted by Sri Krishna Dutt Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the impugned order the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Teacher has been invalidated.

3. The petitioner had applied for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. In her application form she filled her marks obtained as 1174/1474. In fact her correct marks as recorded in her educational testimonials are 1174/1475. The relevant portion of the government order dated 05.03.2021 dealing with the discrepancies of this nature contemplates as follows:

4. The candidature of the petitioner was accordingly invalidated on the footing that she had incorrectly filled her marks in the examination form which was in the teeth of the examination guidelines provided in the government order dated 05.03.2021. The said circular does not provide for rectification of the aforesaid orders and discrepancies in the application form.

5. The issue of incorrect filling up of the application form and the consequences thereof arose for consideration before the learned Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 834 of 2013 (Ram Manohar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 others), decided on 30.05.2013 wherein it has been held:

"If prospective teacher can not even correctly fill up the simple on line application form for his employment, it is obvious what he is going to teach if appointed. There are certain decisions cited on this issue. But none of them deal with this aspect whether under the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India such incompetent persons should be allowed to play with the future of the next generation.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner/appellant should wait till he attains sufficient maturity and learns to be more careful in filling up the applications for jobs....."

6. Similarly the Division of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2014 (Smt. Arti Verma V. State of U.P. And 2 others decided on 05.02.2014) while examining the invalidation of candidature resulting from incorrect filling up of the form laid down the proposition of law:

"In the present case, the appellant claimed the benefit of Freedom Fighters category. The contention that this was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made on line. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a result of human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. No fault can, therefore, be found in rejecting the application for correction when the candidate himself has failed to make a proper disclosure or where, as in the present case, the application is submitted under a wrong category. Interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly not warranted in such matters as it creates grave uncertainty since the selection process cannot be finally completed. Moreover, in the present case, the appointment was of a contractual nature for a period of eleven months. Hence, considering the matter from any perspective, the learned Single Judge was not in error in dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution."

7. The same line of reasoning was adopted by this Court while upholding cancellation of candidature for wrong filling up of the application form in Writ-A No. 4070 of 2020 (Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and 60 others Vs State of U.P. and 2 others) decided on 30.05.2020 by expounding thus:

"20. The error committed by the cand