'Whether Railways Can Reject Candidature Over Bonafide Mistake Of Incorrect Date In Postal Order Despite It Being Issued Within Limitation?' Rajasthan HC Answers

In the present matter, the North Western Railway (NWR) Recruitment Cell issued an advertisement on 16.12.2010 by which the applications for recruitment on several posts of Group 'D'. were invited. The respondent submitted an application under the category of Other Backward Class. He qualified in the written examination, appeared in the physical eligibility test and qualified the medical test. Finally, the respondent was found fit, but subsequently, his candidature was rejected on 29.07.2013 by NWR for the reason that the Postal Order submitted by him was not within limitation.

Thereafter, the respondent feeling aggrieved by the order of rejection of his candidature, submitted the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, which allowed the said application and directed the petitioners-Department to give appointment to him on the post of Group-D with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, the petitioner has filed the present petition

The court directed North Western Railway to give appointment to the respondent on the post of Group-D with all consequential benefits within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof.

Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while disposing of the petition ruled,

"The petitioner-Department is directed to give appointment to the respondent on the post of Group-D with all consequential benefits, if he is otherwise found suitable for the said post, except monetary benefits. The said exercise shall be carried out by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

The court opined that it is the settled position of law that whenever there is a conflict between substantial justice and hyper-technicality, substantial justice should be preferred to avoid the defeat for the ends of justice. The court added that if the hypertechnical stand of the petitioner is allowed to stand as it is then it would amount to failure of justice. The judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners in this regard are not applicable to the facts of the present case, observed the court.

The only objection raised by the petitioner Department is that the date of Postal Order as mentioned in the application was beyond the validity of six months, observed the court.

Moreover, the court found that after accepting the application form of the respondent, the amount of enclosed Postal Order was accepted by the petitioner-Department which got credited by the petitioner-Department. The court added that on the basis thereof, respondent was allowed to participate in the entire recruitment process, it is not a case where the petitioner is either claiming any change of category or seeking any benefit of reservation to defeat the right of any person.

In addition to this, the court remarked as below, while relying on the decision of the coordinate bench in Kavita Chaudhary v. Registrar (Examination) [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017]:

" 'To err is human, to forgive is divine', the mistake can be of two kinds. First kind of mistake would not be where no body is affected by a mistake and the second mistake where a third party is affected by a mistake. The difference in two mistakes would be that whereas the rectification of the first mistake would cause no prejudice, rectification of the second would cause a prejudice."

In Kavita Chaudhary, it was held that human error can be rectified, provided no third parties' right is affected. It has also been held that a bona fide mistake that does not affect a third party's right, should be allowed to be cured if the rectification of the said mistake would cause no prejudice to anyone.

Further, the court opined that the action of the petitioner-Department was totally unfair in rejecting the candidature of the respondent only on the ground that he mentioned the incorrect date of the postal order as 10.01.2010 in place of 10.01.2011. The court added that when once the requisite amount of fee was credited in the account of the petitioner department and after that the respondent was allowed to participate in the entire recruitment process, then the petitioner-Department is stuck to change its stand.

Adv. P.C. Sharma appeared for the petitioner, while Adv. Devendra Sharma for Adv. Balram Vashistha appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Union Of India & Anr. v. Harendra Gawaria

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 79