Delhi High Court Denies Height Relaxation to Police Ward Due to Online Form Error

New Delhi, December 12, 2025 – In a ruling emphasizing the irrevocability of online application forms in government recruitment processes, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Nisha Khan, upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) decision to deny her height relaxation for the Delhi Police Constable (Executive) recruitment. The bench, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain, ruled that candidates cannot seek corrections for errors in submitted forms, even if claimed as bona fide mistakes.

Case Background

The petition arose from the 2020 Delhi Police Constable recruitment drive conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). Nisha Khan, daughter of a serving Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector, applied online on September 6, 2020, for the female constable position. Due to alleged network issues at a cyber café, she inadvertently marked "Yes" in Column 15 (departmental candidate) instead of "No," and "No" in Column 16 (ward of serving/retired/deceased police personnel) instead of "Yes." The required height for female candidates is 157 cm, with relaxation available for police wards.

Khan qualified the written exam and appeared for the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PEMT) on July 26, 2021. She submitted her father's employment certificate and was initially declared qualified at 154.5 cm after relaxation. However, during data verification, the error in her online form surfaced, leading to her disqualification on August 23, 2021. She filed an Original Application (O.A. 2092/2021) before CAT, which dismissed it on July 14, 2023, citing a similar ruling in Pooja Devi v. SSC (O.A. No. 2416/2021). This writ petition (W.P.(C) 12698/2023) challenged that order.

Arguments from Both Sides

Khan's counsel, G.S. Chaturvedi, argued the error was a minor clerical mistake due to her lack of computer proficiency and website overload. He contended Column 15 was redundant for entry-level posts like constable and highlighted that she produced all documents at PEMT, where she was initially qualified. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents like Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar (2024) 11 SCC 785, urging leniency for trivial errors, and Delhi High Court's Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India (2016), where typographical mistakes did not bar candidature. He also cited Amarnath Maurya v. SSC (2016), where similar relief was granted.

Respondents' counsel, Rajesh Kumar (Special Public Prosecutor) and Yash Narain for the Union of India, stressed the SSC notice's clear instructions: applications must be submitted early to avoid glitches, and no corrections are allowed post-submission under any circumstances (paragraphs 20(1), 20(8), and Annexure-II, S.No.18). They argued the onus is on candidates to verify details before submission, and allowing changes would disrupt the process for millions (SSC handles over 1.75 crore applicants yearly). They invoked Supreme Court rulings in Maharashtra PSC v. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019) 6 SCC 362 and Mohit Kumar v. State of UP (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1125), affirming that courts cannot override clear recruitment rules.

Legal Precedents and Court's Reasoning

The court aligned with CAT's reliance on Pooja Devi , where a similar failure to mark "ward of police personnel" barred relaxation, noting candidates must fill forms "with eyes wide open." It reiterated the principle from Sandeep Shriram Warade that courts cannot reinterpret unambiguous advertisement terms, and from Mohit Kumar that aspirants must seek clarity pre-submission or risk rejection.

Key excerpt from the judgment: "A candidate cannot be allowed to approach the Court stating that they realised their mistake only when he/she failed to qualify. Such post-failure claims for correction are not entertainable... Giving benefit to one candidate now would deny the same benefit to others, disturbing equality."

The bench distinguished Vashist Narayan Kumar and Ajay Kumar Mishra , as those involved trivial typographical errors (e.g., date of birth) not affecting core eligibility, unlike here where Column 16 directly impacted height relaxation. The redundancy of Column 15 was dismissed, as candidates cannot challenge form design post-participation. Amarnath Maurya was deemed inapplicable due to differing facts.

Final Decision and Implications

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition on December 12, 2025, upholding CAT's order and declaring it devoid of merit. No costs were imposed, and pending applications were disposed of.

This ruling reinforces strict adherence to recruitment protocols, cautioning aspirants—especially those from non-tech-savvy backgrounds—against last-minute submissions. It underscores the SSC's authority in large-scale hiring, potentially affecting thousands in similar predicaments, and highlights the need for digital literacy in public exams. Legal experts note it balances fairness with administrative efficiency, preventing a "Pandora's box" of belated claims.