Aman, Appointment, (Group 'C'),

Aged about 19 years,

S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar,

R/o Vill & PO - Noganwa,

Distt :-- Jhajjar (Haryana)

Pin – 124106.

…Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. M D Jangra)

Versus

1. Union of India Through,

its Secretary, Govt. of India,

Ministry of Communications,

Department of Posts,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Asst Director General,

Department of Posts,

Dak Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001.

3. The Senior Supdt. of Post Offices,

Department of Posts,

Ajmer Division,

Ajmer (Raj) - 305001

…Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. B. C. Bhatt)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present Original Application has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 whereby the candidature of the applicant for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) was rejected during document verification solely on the ground of a minor inadvertent typographical error in mentioning the name of the educational board as “Rajasthan” instead of “Haryana”, despite the fact that the original certificates clearly reflect the correct board and the applicant was otherwise found eligible and duly shortlisted.

1.1. Learned counsel contended that the said error was bona fide, occurred at the time of online form filling through CSC centre, and is supported by records including SSC certificate and representations/e-mails dated 19.02.2023 and 03.04.2023 which were not considered, rendering the impugned action arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

1.2. Learned counsel placed reliance upon judicial precedents including Anuj Pratap Singh v. UPSC & anr. (W.P. (C) No. 8415/2018), Arkshit Kapoor v. UOI & ors. (W.P. (C) No. 3721/2017) and Ajay Kumar Mishra v. UOI & ors. (W.P. (C) No. 11642/2016) to submit that inadvertent and minor errors cannot be treated as misrepresentation so as to deny public employment.

1.3. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 24.03.2023, a declaration that the rejection is illegal and arbitrary, and a consequential direction to the respondents to permit the applicant to participate further in the selection process for the post of GDS.

2. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Original Application is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit as the candidature of the applicant has been rightly rejected during document verification in strict accordance with the notified recruitment rules and the SOP dated 01.03.2023 issued by the Department of Posts, as the data furnished in the online application by the applicant did not tally with the original documents produced, including mismatch in the name of the Board, year and state of passing as well as subjects mentioned, thereby rendering the candidature ineligible at the verification stage itself.

2.1. Learned counsel contended that the process was entirely system-driven and subject to mandatory document verification by the competent authority, and mere eligibility or shortlisting does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment, and as the rejection is based on objective verification of discrepancies and not on arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.

2.2. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel argued that since all similarly placed candidates are treated uniformly under the same SOP, the impugned action is legal, fair and in accordance with law, hence the OA deserves to be dismissed.

3. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant had attempted to correct the said clerical error within the permitted window but was unable to do so due to technical issues on the portal and had also promptly informed the respondents through e-mail.

3.1. Learned counsel further contended that t