'Balance Must Be Stricken Between Mistake And Chance To Rectify Lapse', Delhi High Court Allows Candidates To Join Post
Syed Nazarat Fatima
27 Nov 2024 4:28 PM IST
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed while allowing a Petition that authorities must look into the accuracy of documents and decide the cases of candidates based on facts and circumstances of each case. While holding that the submission of documents was an important step in selection process and must be adhered to strictly, the Court held that a balance needed to be stricken between the discrepancies and the chance to rectify the errors.
Background
The Petitioners were candidates who aspired to join the Indian Coast Guard/respondent no.1 as Navik (General Duty).
Petitioner No. 1 came fell under Other Backward Class (OBC) (non-creamy layer) category by the Government of India while Petitioner no. 2 and 3 belonged to the Kemapre or Redoika (OBC) category and Yadava (Golla) community [OBC (non-creamy layer)] respectively.
When the recruitment advertisement was issued, the Petitioners applied for the post under OBC category on 07.01.2022, 11.01.2022 and 05.01.2022, respectively. They appeared for the written examination after issuance of provisional admit card for Stage-I which they qualified at the end of March 2022. After uploading the documents and obtaining provisional admit cards for the Stage-II examination, the Petitioners appeared for the exams. They passed the Physical Fitness Test (PFT) as well as the document verification stage. There was an issue with the GPA calculation for the first two Petitioners and an issue with the marksheet of 10th grade with the 3rd Petitioner. After having these issues resolved, the Petitioners were declared as having passed the examinations provisionally.
Later, it came as a shock to the Petitioners that their candidature was rejected. The candidature of two Petitioners was rejected due to discrepancies in the marksheet of 10th grade to an extent of having entered false information in their applications and having applied the wrong conversion formula while calculating their class 10th percentage and having also failed the document verification. The third Petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground of alleged mismatch in the name of the petitioner's father on the Caste Certificate and an issue in the date of obtaining class 10th certificate. The 'date of issue' of the class 10th certificate for the 3rd Petitioner was also held as incorrect and he was informed that he had also failed the document verification.
Accordingly, they were not shortlisted for Stage III of the Examinations.
The petitioners filed various representations which were rejected leading in them approaching the Court.
Contentions of the Parties:
The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary because the candidature of the Petitioners was rejected at Stage III after they had already cleared Stage II of the examinations. It was submitted that the petitioners used the general formula of multiplying the GPA by 10 because there was no specific formula given for converting grades into marks and therefore the Respondents claiming it to be a mismatch was incorrect. Moreover, stating that the marks scored in 10th grade was irrelevant for the examinations, the Counsel stated that it was only to ascertain that the Petitioners had cleared the 10th grade exams.
Criticizing the hyper-technical approach adopted by the respondents, the Counsel argued that the Petitioners were eligible by both the formulas and it was an unintentional mistake on behalf of the petitioners 1-2 that got their candidature rejected.
Concerning the 3rd Petitioner's issue, the Counsel contended that since he had cleared Stage II examinations, the Respondents could not have rejected his candidature at the 3rd stage. Furthermore, the issue with the father's name was to be attributed to the Certificate Issuing Authority and not Petitioner No. 3, the Counsel argued. It was asserted that the mistake was only typographic and the Petitioner was not given an opportunity to rectify it before rejecting his candidature.
While making these contentions and submissions, the Counsel relied on Ahire Ajinkya Shankar vs. Indian Coast Guard & Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine Del 5726, and Chape Prajwal Laxmanrao vs. Union of India & ors., (2023) SCC Online Del 4838.
Asserting that the errors committed by the Petitioners were human errors, the Counsel stated that such issues should not have been dealt with such a degree of strictness also owing to the fact that the Petitioners came from the OBC category.
Contentions of the Respondents:
Terming it as negligence, the Counsel argued that the Petitions must be dismissed. It was submitted that the marksheet of 12th standard of Petitioner no.1 also had issues but it was not published in the declaration of the final result of the candidate. However, later it was found that there was a discrepancy in the 10th grade marksheet as well. The Counsel stated that the Petitioner had not only calculated his 10th class marks incorrectly but had also put in the marks and percentage of class 12th incorrectly. The Counsel opposed the contention that the Petitioners were informed about having provisionally passed the Stage II of the examinations. Submitting further that recruitment was a formal process, the Counsel submitted that there was nothing like a verbal affirmation that was given to the Petitioners in relation to their selection.
Moreover, relying on Rohit Kumar vs Union of India &Ors., WP(C) 15051/2021, the Counsel submitted that when the Petitioner was given the discrepancy sheet, he had also signed it.
It was also stated that Petitioner no. 3 was required to submit the OBC certificate, instead of which, he submitted the community and nativity and date of birth certificate, which had no relevance to the OBC category.
Findings of the Court:
The Court observed that generally the candidates must strictly adhere to conditions mentioned under recruitment rules and they should provide all the necessary documents or information as is required as per the advertisement.
Specifying the significance of document verification under any post, the Court held that this step would segregate those candidates who fail to adhere to the norms and guidelines set out by any such Force.
However, the Court relied on Union Public Services Commission vs. Tarun Arora, W.P.(C) 3003/2016 and stated that each case shall need separate attention to consider the facts and circumstances of every individual case.
In relation to the mismatch in the documents produced by the candidate, the Court held that it had to strike a balance between the mistake and the chance to rectify the same along with the administrative difficulties and consequences.
The Court observed that it needed to be determined as to whether the discrepancies in the documents could be overlooked as innocent errors or those were a lapse on the part of the petitioners in filling the online application forms.
Concerning Petitioners 1 and 2, the Court held that since there was no formula to convert GPA into percentage of marks, it could not be said that the formula applied by the Petitioners was incorrect. The Court perused the clarification issued by the DGE in which it was held,
'The Marks secured by the candidates are converted into Grades & Grade Points using the methodology which is indicated on the rear side of the SSC Certificate and there is no explicit procedure to convert the Grades into Marks as of this day'.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the contention of the Respondent that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had incorrectly applied the conversion formula. Calling it a bona fide mistake, the Court stated that petitioner nos.1 and 2, who were otherwise meritorious, could not suffer due to a minor discrepancy.
Concerning the case of the 3rd Petitioner who had uploaded a community, nativity, and date of birth certificate instead of an OBC certificate, the Court held that there was no mention of the said error in the emails sent to him and that his candidature was only rejected based on the mismatch in his father's name in the Caste Certificate and a discrepancy in the date of issuance of his Class 10th Certificate.
It was further held that the error in the father's name wasn't accurately determined as it was not a case of mismatch. His father's half name was mentioned, the Court specified. Therefore, the Respondents could not have rejected the candidature without accurately assessing the error.
The Court stated that in relation to the incorrect date of issuance of the class 10th Certificate in the application form, the Respondents had not verified the authenticity of the certificate as it was an unintentional error which had occurred due to the delay in receiving his original mark sheet because of COVID-19.
Making these observations, the Respondents were directed to allow the petitioners to join the Induction Course with the next batch, subject to completing other formalities.
Accordingly, the Petition was allowed.
Case Title: Rongali Naidu & Ors vs. Indian Coast Guard
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Abhinay Sharma, Mr. Pooran Chand Roy, Ms. Deeksha Prakash, Ms.Parul Khurana & Ms. Kirti Vyas, Advs.
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Adv, Ms. Sarika Singh, SPC with Mr. Rishav Dubey, GP for UOI, Ms. Shagun Shahi Chugh, Adv
