Union of India vs Anuradha

This appeal is filed by the Union of India questioning the order of the learned Single Judge made in SWP No. 2207/1999, dated 31.05.2001,

whereby writ petition filed by the respondent seeking to quash order dated 21.01.1999 and directing the appellants to appoint the respondent for

the post he applied namely post of clerk/typist was allowed.

The case of the respondent before the Writ Court was that he applied for the post of clerk/typist pursuant to the advertisement notice issued by

appellant No. 2. The said application was scrutinized and she was assigned Roll No. 1132553 and she was asked to appear in the written

examination for the post of clerk/typist. The respondent appeared in the written test for the said post, which was held in 1996, the result of which

was declared in March, 1997. She was declared successful in written test, which was published in the newspaper. The respondent also appeared

in the typewriting test, which was held in August, 1997. In the typewriting test also, she was declared successful and as such she was selected as

clerk in Group 'X' in the SSC, which was also published in the newspaper. For getting the appointment letter pursuant to the selection, when the

respondent approached the 2nd appellant, he suggested to wait for 2-3 months for getting appointment letter. No letter having been received, the

respondent sent a representation to the appellants for which a reply was given stating that the selection has been cancelled on the ground that the

appellant's result without exemption from typewriting test has been checked and it was found that she does not qualify the typewriting test of clerk

grade and she also gave false information in her application form as if she is a physically challenged person, therefore, examination undergone by

the respondent was cancelled. The respondent issued counsel notice on 10.03.1999 and called upon the appellants to give exact reason for

cancelling her candidature.

No reply having been received the respondent preferred the writ petition by contending that in the application form she has mistakenly marked

the column yes as if she is a physically challenged person and she has not enclosed any certificate to prove her disability and she having

participated in the typing test and came out successful, mere error in filling up the application i.e. marking yes in the column of physically challenged

person without any proof cannot be put against the respondent.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition taking note of the fact that even though the respondent mistakenly claimed that she is

physically challenged person in Clause 7(b) of the application form, she having appeared in the typewriting test, which is required to be undergone

by the candidates claiming selection i.e., other than the physically challenged candidates, held in August, 1997 and having regard to the fact that she

had not appended any certificate to prove her being a handicapped person, she is entitled to get appointment as her name was shown at serial No.

1 of the select list.

The appellants have challenged the said order in this appeal, contending that the respondent being a candidate without any physical disability and

she having claimed her candidature as a physically disabled candidate and she having not passed the typewriting test, learned Single Judge ought

not to have allowed the writ petition.

We have considered the rival submissions.

The point which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the respondent though claimed as physically disabled person in the

application form for whom no requirement of appearing in the typewriting test and whether the respondent actually appeared in the typewriting test.

The hall ticket issued to the respondent to appear in the English typing test is filed as Annexure-A to the writ petition, wherein it is mentioned

that the respondent shall appear in Centre Code No. 113-001 in Govt. College for Women, Parade Ground, Jammu on 13.08.1997. The

respondent even though mentioned in the application form that she is physically challenged person, to prove the same she has not enclosed any

certificate issued by the competent authority and she has also appeared in the typewriting test as is evident from the hall ticket issued by 2nd

respondent. Thus, the appellants are not right in contending that the respondent has not appeared in the typewriting test, which is required for the

candidates other than the physically challenged persons.

Learned Single Judge has taken note of the said fact and allowed the writ petition by holding that merely because the respondent erroneously

marked yes instead of no in Clause 7(b) of the application form, the same cannot be put against the respondent for cancelling her selection. The

said view of the learned Single Judge is justified.

The respondent erroneously while filling up the application form made a mistake without any intention at the tender age cannot be denied

appointment, as she appeared for typing test and passed the same. The respondent has not suppressed any fact and by mistake filled up the

column, however, satisfied other requirements for selection. Hence the said inadvertent mistake cannot be the sole reason to cancel the selection.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The

appellants are directed to implement the order of the learned Single Judge, if not already implemented within a period of six weeks from the date

copy of this order is received on them.

Appeal is dismissed. No costs.