IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.01.2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Petitioners Versus AMAN AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to be order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), by which, the claim of respondent No.1 that his date of birth is 05.05.2003 and not 05.06.2003 keeping in view the documents produced before the authorities, has been accepted and direction has been given to consider the claim of respondent No.1 for selection in case he is otherwise found within the merit.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that though, as per the certificates submitted by respondent No.1, his date of birth is 05.05.2003, but keeping with the fact that while filling up the online application at a cyber cafe, same was wrongly mentioned as 05.06.2003, he could not be appointed though, he was within the selection zone and keeping in view the term and condition of selection that older in age was to be preferred, the other candidates have been granted appointment instead of respondent No.1 by taking his date of birth as 05.06.2003, which was mentioned by respondent No.1 in his online application form. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the said entry was a typographical error, the same could not have been altered subsequently so as to claim the benefit of actual date of birth, hence, the grant of the benefit by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case is incorrect.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.

4. It is may be noticed that the application was filled online through a cyber cafe, wherein, instead of 05.05.2003, the date of birth was entered as 05.06.2003. This shows that instead of “5”, “6” was typed inadvertently in the online application form, but before the selection process could be finalized, an application was made by respondent No.1 to correct the inadvertent factual mistake qua incorrect mentioning of date of birth.

5. Even during the scrutiny the documents, the said discrepancy was brought to the notice of the authorities by respondent No.1, but the authorities refused to accept the actual date of birth as depicted in the date of birth certificate, which concededly is 05.05.2003. The Tribunal has rightly held that once, even on the date of the submission of the online application, as per the birth certificate, the date of birth was 05.05.2003. Merely because, inadvertently, the same was typed as 05.06.2003 instead of 05.05.2003 while filling of online form at a cyber cafe, the benefit of selection could not be denied to respondent No.1 due to the said inadvertent mistake, which mistake was clearly attributable to cyber cafe owner, who had filled the form on behalf of respondent No.1.

5. In order to advance the substantial justice especially when, respondent No.1 was within the selection zone, but was being denied consideration solely on the basis of incorrect date of birth, the direction has rightly been given to consider the claim of respondent No.1 on the basis of the actual date of birth, which date of birth is 05.05.2003 concededly even before this court.

6. It may also be noticed that even before the selection process could be initiated, a request had already been made by the candidate/respondent No.1 for correcting his date of birth from 05.06.2003 to 05.05.2003, which application remained pending with the petitioners throughout the selection process. Once, even prior to the culmination of the written examination, an application was made by respondent No.1 for correction of his date of birth as men