Mismatch between disability category claimed in application and certificate at verification justifies candidature cancellation, despite exam success; no vested right or relief for claimed inadvertent error.

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Shri Lal Ji Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K. K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

“(i) to quash the Panel For EMP Notice No. 01/2013 in respect of applicant bearing Roll respondent no.3, no. 1510387484 passed by the respondent no. 3.

(ii) to issue Order, Rule or Direction to the respondents to treat the applicant handicapped/viklang and select him for the aforesaid post in accordance with law,

(iii) to pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case,

(iv) to award the cost through out to the applicant.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued Advertisement No. 01/2013 for recruitment to posts carrying Grade Pay ₹1800 in PB–I (erstwhile Group ‘D’ posts). The applicant applied for the said post and possessed the requisite educational and other prescribed qualifications. He was permitted to appear in the written examination conducted on 02.11.2014, in which he was declared successful. Thereafter, the respondents issued a letter calling the applicant for document verification and medical examination, and the applicant appeared before the competent authority with all necessary documents. However, when the provisional panel was published, a remark was made against the applicant stating that he was not a “person with disability,” and on this basis his candidature was cancelled. The applicant has stated that he is in fact a physically disabled person and has placed on record a valid disability certificate issued by the competent authority (Annexure A-5). It has further been submitted that his candidature was rejected only on the ground that in the application form he had inadvertently marked the disability category as “HH” (Hearing Handicapped), whereas his disability certificate shows that he belongs to the “OH” (Orthopedically Handicapped) category. According to the applicant, the recruitment notification was issued in English and since he belongs to a Hindi-speaking region, he mistakenly marked the wrong category without any intention to misrepresent facts. The applicant contends that the error was purely inadvertent and technical in nature and that cancellation of his candidature despite possessing a valid disability certificate is arbitrary and illegal.

4. On the other hand, the respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit as well as a supplementary counter affidavit denying the averments made in the Original Application. The respondents have stated that the recruitment notification clearly provided that if the category claimed by a candidate in the application form was found to be incorrect at any stage of the selection process, the candidature of such candidate would be liable to be cancelled. It has been submitted that the applicant was only provisionally permitted to appear in the written examination and, after being declared successful, he was called for document verification and medical examination. During the process of document verification, it was noticed that the applicant had incorrectly mentioned his disability category in the online application form, and upon scrutiny of the documents submitted by him, it was found that the disability certificate produced by the applicant did not correspond to the category claimed by him in the application form. On this ground, the candidature of the applicant was cancelle