Prakash Paswan And Ors vs Secretary, Staff Selection, Block No.12, CGO Complex, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road And Ors

Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due

to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondent to make correction in the domicile of the petitioners from District

Hazaribagh to Chatra.

Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi published the notice of examination for recruitment of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces

(CAPFs), National Investigation Agency (NIA), Secretariat Security Force (SSF) and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifle on 21.07.2018 in Employment

News/Rozgar Samachar. The name of examination is Constables (GD) in CAPFs, NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Exam, 2018

(hereinafter referred to Constable GD Examination, 2018) The said notice was also uploaded in the SSC website on 25.07.2018.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioners applied for appointment on the post of Constables. The petitioners filled up on line application Form as well as in the

drop down menu. The petitioners were allowed to appear in the said examination. At the time of document verification and verification of Form, it was

detected that the petitioners have wrongly filled domicile of District as Hazaribagh in place of Chatra. Thereafter, the candidature of the petitioners

were cancelled. Aggrieved with this, the petitioners have approached this Court praying therein to correct the District of domicile in their online

application Form as well as drop down menu.

Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned action on the ground that the petitioners have bonafidely and mistakably

fill up the Form wherein they have indicated domicile of District Hazaribag in place of Chatra. The petitioners are having domicile certificate of Chatra

but that has not been filled and the petitioners were allowed to participate in the examination and they have been selected and at the time of

verification of credentials, it was detected. Thereafter, the candidature of petitioners were rejected. He submits that it was bonafide mistake and that

can be corrected at this stage also. To buttress his argument, by way of relying one order of Madras High Court passed in W.P. No.5205 of 2020 he

submits that the Madras High Court has allowed the correction of domicile of District in that case and the case of the petitioner is on the similar

footing. He submits that in the light of the same, the prayer of the petitioner may kindly be allowed. He further relied the order of High Court of

Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No.4761 of 2020 and submits the Bombay High Court has allowed the petitioner of those

case to correct the application Form with regard to District of domicile. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of two

orders of Madras High Court and the order of Bombay High Court respectively.

Per contra, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent- Union of India submits that the case of the petitioners is fit to be rejected only on the

ground that in the advertisement the entire procedure has been reflected wherein so many times in so many columns, it has been stated that after

online application Form, no correction will be allowed to be done. He refers to column no.17 and submits that candidates were required to select their

domicile District from the drop down menu as well as on line and in the next column, they were again required to verify the domicile District from the

drop down menu. He submits that both entries were independent of each other and the system would accept information about the domicile District of

the candidates only if the information given in both these columns matched perfectly. He submits that it is not only on-line Form. The procedure

prescribes about filling of two Forms and the systems accepts the domicile if the domicile State is stated correctly disclosed in both Forms. He further

submits that the terms and conditions of notice of examination are binding both on the Commission as well as on the applicant. He submits that the

petitioners have admitted that they have provided wrong domicile of District. By way of referring several clauses, he submits that at various stages it

has been disclosed that how the application Form is to be filled up and caution has also been highlighted in the said notice, in spite of that the

petitioners have filled wrong information. He further submits that the procedure has been prescribed in advertisement that there is no reason for a

particular candidate the said procedure shall be changed. That is violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. To buttress his argument, he

relied in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Versus Saifudaullah Khan & Others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 particularly para 25, 29 and 30 which is

quoted hereinbelow:-

It was further the case of Respondent 1 that he had produced the necessary documents in support of his claim of locomotor disability to the extent

of 50% along with the other certificates and testimonials at the time of interview. However, when the select list was published on 15-6-2009, the name

of Respondent 1 was not included therein. It was in fact the appellant, who had been selected for appointment. It was also the case of Respondent 1

that the appellant had scored 695 marks whereas Respondent 1 had scored 817 marks in the examination. In spite of having scored higher marks, he

was illegally and arbitrarily not selected

We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public

office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any

undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection

procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be

any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the

relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such

power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This

would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and

compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution of India.

A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an

error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing

in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of Respondent 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate

of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

He further submits that it is well settled proposition of law that candidates who has already appeared in the examination and had participated, are not

allowed. They are estopped from raising any grievance. For ready reference, he relied in the case of Nitish Kumar Pandey Versus State of Madhya

Pradesh & Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 70 particularly para 14 which is quoted hereinbelow:-

The learned Senior Advocate for the appellants while contending that the writ petitioners having participated in the computer efficiency test are

estopped from raising any grievance subsequently has placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar

wherein it is held as hereunder: (SCC p. 363, para 13) ""13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra

Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is

subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination

would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair

or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, this Court held that: (SCC p. 107,

para 18) '18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein

were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission.)'

In that light it is further contended that the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board has held that a decision

rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent will have to be held as a decision rendered per incuriam.

In reply, Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the two High Courts of India have directed and if the petitioners of those

cases have given benefit, the petitioners herein are also entitled for the same benefit. He submits that if those persons have been provided employment

after the intervention of Hon'ble Madras High Court and Bombay High Court and if the petitioners are not allowed, the Article 14 and 16 of

Constitution of India is being attracted in the case of the petitioners and on these grounds arguments of Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the

respondent-Union of India are fit to be rejected.

In the light of above facts and submission of learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is an admitted

position that the petitioners have filled up wrong domicile in the application Form on line as well as in drop down menu. The examination has already

been over and during the document verification, it was detected that they have wrongly filled up the domicile. In the advertisement notice, it has been

clearly stated that the candidates were cautioned to fill up the application Form very carefully. The detailed guidelines has been provided in the notice

as to how to fill up the application Form. The scheme of examination has also been disclosed in the said notice. It has been indicated in column 17 of

the said notice which is quoted hereinbelow:-

Candidates are advised to be very careful and should exercise due diligence while providing information about domicile state and district in the online

application form. No request for change of domicile state and district will be entertained by the commission after submission of application form under

any circumstances. If there is any variation of district and/ or state mentioned by the candidate in the online application form and the domicile

certificate submitted by them at the time of DME, their candidature will be cancelled forthwith and they will not be allowed to participate in DME.

Caution has been made therein and it has been clearly indicated that if the domicile is wrongly indicated, the candidature will be cancelled forthwith. In

plethora of judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the procedure for appointment has been indicated, that needs to be followed and

one of the judgment relied by Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India in the case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra) is on the

same line. It is also well settled provision of law that once a candidate appeared after knowing the entire criteria of appointment and participated in the

examination, he is estopped from raising any grievance. Subsequently, the judgment relied by Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-

Union of India in the case of Nitish Kumar Pandey (supra) is also on the same line. So far the judgment relied by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel

for the petitioners of Madras High Court is concerned that order has been passed on the concession provided by the learned counsel appearing for the

Central Government. So far the judgment relied by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners of Bombay High Court is concerned on the

ground of bonafide mistake, that has been allowed by Bombay High Court, however, this aspect of the matter has not been considered in that

judgment as to whether procedure has been prescribed in the advertisement that will govern or any concession can be granted under Article 226 of

Constitution of India. Thus, these two judgments relied by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners is not helping the petitioners. The

argument of Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that Articles 14 and 16 is also not being accepted by the Court in view of the fact

that negative equality cannot be allowed in favour of any person. Reference in this regard may be made in the case of State of Orissa v. Mamata

Mohant reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 particularly para 56 which is quoted hereinbelow:-

It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some

other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the

petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of

Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K, Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal.) As

a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion, no relief can be extended to the petitioners.

The writ petition stands dismissed.