JUDGMENT

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

1. On 28.10.2020 a Notice No.2/2021.CDS-I dated 28.10.2020 was issued by the Union Public Service Commission („UPSC‟) for conducting Combined Defence Services Examination (I), 2021 [Including SSC Women (Non-Technical) Course. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for Officers Training Academy, Chennai (Madras) 29th SSC Women (NT) (UPSC) Course which was scheduled to commence in April, 2022. The scheme of examination consisted of two stages, first being written examination and those who qualified the written examination, were invited for second stage i.e. interview for intelligence and personality test. 2. The written examination for Combined Defence Services Examination (I), 2021 [Including SSC Women (Non-Technical) Course] was conducted by UPSC on 07.02.2021, result whereof was declared on 23.03.2021 and the petitioner is said to have qualified the written examination. On 23.12.2021, petitioner received a call letter for SSB interview for SSCW (NT)-29 Course Apr 2022 wherein she was directed to report at Main Gate of Selection Centre South, Bangalore Cubbon Road near Manipal Centre on 29.01.2022. According to the said Call letter, the petitioner was required to bring original documents mentioned therein.

3. According to petitioner, on 29.01.2022, she appeared for the interview at the fixed day, time and place and after verification of her documents, she was not permitted to appear in the interview as on the said date she was not having her graduation degree/ provisional degree with her.

4. During the course of hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that petitioner had graduated in History Honours from Delhi University in the year 2019; she met the eligibility criteria and at the time of verification of documents, she had produced the original marks sheet bearing the stamp of the college and signature of the college Principal. However, respondents discarded the same on the ground that as per UPSC recommendations, the marks sheet cannot be considered as proof of graduation. The officials of the respondents told the petitioner that petitioner did not even present the bona fide issued by her college, in reply to which petitioner informed that bona fide is issued by the college only in respect of those who are yet to complete graduation and she was already graduate and had therefore presented her marks sheet, but no heed was paid to her requests. Petitioner further claims to have sent e-mail to respondents to re-conduct her interview, but to no avail.

5. The grievance of petitioner is that even though she had later been issued graduation degree from her college but due to clerical mistake in one alphabet in the enrolment number, a letter was sent by the college Principal to the competent authority for correction of the same.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner next submitted that rejecting petitioner‟s candidature solely on the basis of technicalities is not only harsh but arbitrary. It was submitted that petitioner had presented her original marks sheet before the concerned officials at the time of verification of documents, which is a form of proof of her graduation, which is duly stamped and signed. It was submitted that due to third wave of Covid Pandemic, petitioner, who is living in Sandila, Uttar Pradesh; could not travel Delhi to collect her degree and thereafter to Banglore for appearing in the interview.

7. Reliance was placed upon DOPT OM No. 35015/2/93-Esst(d) Dated 09.08.1995 where-under petitioner could have been given extension of time to produce her original degree before the competent authority.

8. Reliance was placed upon decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria and Ors. Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 752, wherein three candidates who were ousted for non production of diploma with the application form, it was observed that the way of viewing problems dehumanizes the administrative, judicial and even legislative processes in the wider pers