HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Decided on 30.10.2025 ****

Gurwinder Singh ... Petitioner VS.

Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. RD Bawa, Advocate, Mr. Samuel Gill, Advocate, and Mr. Randhir Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Advocate, Sr.Panel Counsel, for the respondents ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 10.12.2020 (Annexures P10 & P11), passed by respondent No.6 vide which the services of the petitioner have been ordered to be terminated. A further direction is sought to the respondents to adjust the petitioner on the post of Driver MT (OG) in view of the marks obtained by him. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had participated in the selection process for the post of driver, however, in the application form (Annexure P-2), inadvertently, he had mentioned his category as 'ST' (Scheduled Tribes) while appending a certificate showing him to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, with the application form. He submits that the petitioner had secured 84 marks as against the cut off marks of 74 in the SC category. It is contended that the petitioner ought to have been accommodated in the General category keeping in view the fact that the last candidate, who had secured 84 marks, was junior to the petitioner in age. It is argued that even if the petitioner is to be taken as a candidate of 'SC' category, then also, he had secured 84 marks, whereas the last candidate in that category had secured 74 marks. He relies on Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 119 to contend that reserved category candidates (SC/ST/OBC) who score higher marks than the last selected candidate in the general category must be placed in the general category merit list and not in the reserved category quota as such a principle ensures that merit prevails and the general category seats are filled by the most deserving candidates, regardless of their caste or category.

(3). Learned counsel then urged that a notice of termination dated 21.11.2020 (Annexure P-8) was on the ground that he had intentionally mentioned his category as 'ST' despite the fact that his certificate was showing him to be a candidate belonging to the 'SC' category and ultimately vide impugned orders dated 10.12.2020 (Annexures P10 & P11), the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner, which is patently illegal and unjust in the eyes of law. He further contends that during selection process, the petitioner had informed the respondents that he should be treated as a candidate belonging to the 'SC' category.

(4). It is the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the ticking of the “ST” (Scheduled Tribe) category in the application form was an inadvertent and bona fide mistake, as elsewhere in the same application he had clearly indicated his category as “SC” (Scheduled Caste) and had duly furnished the appropriate SC certificate on two occasions and as such, the error being axiomatically a clerical error which was pointed out by the petitioner at the time of the recruitment test also, the authorities failed to rectify this obvious mistake, resulting in the petitioner being treated under the ST category to his detriment. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Satyendra Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. (Writ-A No. 21117 of 2018) wherein it has been held that inadvertent errors in application forms should not defeat the substantial rights of otherwise meritorious candidates.

(5). On the contrary, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents on the basis of the reply dated 20.07.2021 filed by DN Dahat, Commander HQ 16 BRTF, C/o 56 APO vehemently controverted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the