A candidate may be permitted to participate in a selection process despite a non-misleading arithmetical error in the application, and disqualification cannot be based on grounds not previously communicated to the candidate.

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat appearing with Mr. Mehul Sharma for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner applied for the post of Associate Professor pursuant to the advertisement published by the respondent No.1 – University in various newspapers on 1.10.2025 and though the petitioner is meeting with all the requirements as prescribed in the said advertisement, the petitioner’s candidature is rejected on the ground that the minimum API score is not fulfilled.

2. According to learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shelat, the respondents have arrived at the above conclusion and rejected the petitioner’s candidature on account of some arithmetical error committed by the present petitioner and actually, the petitioner is meeting with the API score requirement of the respondent No.1 University. He further submitted that though the petitioner preferred an application for allowing him to correct the API score in the application form, the aforesaid request was rejected by the respondent No.1 University and, therefore, now though the petitioner is a meritorious and is qualified to appear in the interview, by all means as far as the other qualifications and requirements are concerned, the same is denied by the University and, therefore, this petition is preferred.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 2.1.2024 in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar and others , in Civil Appeal No.1 of 2024 and submitted that if any mistake which is not intended to mislead or which is not factual wrong or misleading, the same is always allowed to be corrected as per the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment and, therefore, the petitioner also deserves one chance to correct the API score in the application form and, therefore, without creating any equity or right in favour of the petitioner and as the petitioner is ready and willing to file an undertaking to that effect, the petitioner if otherwise fulfilling all other requirements as prescribed in the advertisement and for any other requirement which according to the respondent University, the petitioner is not meeting with the requisite criteria which is duly communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner may be permitted at least to appear in the oral interview for the post in question.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat further submitted that interview for the post in question are not yet scheduled and the petitioner is ready and willing to file an undertaking before this Court as well as before the respondent No.1 – University within a period of one week from today, keeping all the rights and contentions of both the sides open and with a clear understanding that mere participation in the interview for the post in question shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that while issuing notice, this Court may allow the petitioner to appear in the oral interview, if subject to fulfillment of all other criteria.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Amar D. Mithani appearing for the respondent No.1 University has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that in almost identical situation, a grievance was raised before the Delhi High Court and the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case