Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1406 (DEL)

ANKUR AHLAWAT v. UOI

2007-07-18

HIMA KOHLI

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition for seeking quashing of letter dated 26. 6. 2007 issued by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the request made on behalf of the petitioner for change of educational qualification code from 03 to 04 in the application made by the petitioner for the purpose of taking the national Defence Academy and Navel Academy Examination (II) 2006. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that due to bona fide inadvertence, while filling up the form in March, 2006, in the educational qualification column of the application, the petitioner inadvertently encircled code 03 instead of encircling code 04 and this came to the notice of the petitioner only in the month of June, 2007 when the results were declared and it transpired that his name was not mentioned in the list of successful candidates for being selected to the Executive Branch of the Naval Academy. An application was also preferred before the respondent No. 2 on behalf of the petitioner, which was rejected by the impugned letter dated 26. 6. 2007 and thus the present petition has been preferred. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that two vacancies still exist in the Executive Branch of the Naval Academy where the petitioner could be accommodated. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled for relaxation by respondent No. 2 treating the case of the petitioner as an exceptional one in terms of the Examination Notice issued by it. It is also stated that respondent No. 2 was under an obligation to cross check the educational code of the applicants at its end and had this been done, the error made by the petitioner would have surfaced much earlier. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, has drawn the attention of this Court to para 4 of Appendix-I to the Examination Notice advertised by the UPSC, wherein there is a clear indication to the effect that no change in the entries made in the original application will be allowed under any circumstances. She states on instructions that after completion of all formalities with respect to the selected candidates, the course in question has already begun in the last week of June 2007. She further states that the two vacancies referred to by the petitioner have also since lapsed. She states on instructions that after completion of all formalities with respect to the selected candidates, the course in question has already begun in the last week of June 2007. She further states that the two vacancies referred to by the petitioner have also since lapsed. ( 4 ) THE plea of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 could have treated the case of the petitioner as an exceptional one so as to permit him to correct the error in his application is not acceptable inasmuch as the condition in the examination notice was that the Commission may in exceptional case treat the candidate who does not possess any qualifications prescribed in the rule, as educationally qualified provided that the said candidate possesses qualifications , the standard of which in the opinion of the Commission justifies his admission to the examinations. The case of the petitioner is not of the aforesaid nature. The petitioner is not seeking relaxation of his educational qualifications, but is seeking correction in his application form with respect to his educational qualifications. ( 5 ) THE other plea raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent No. 2 was under an obligation to verify the application of the petitioner and point out any error, if so noticed, is also devoid of merits as the onus to fill the application form correctly cannot be shifted by the candidate on respondent no. 2. The verification,if any, was required to be done by respondent No. 2 only to satisfy itself that the applicants fulfill all eligibility conditions. Further, in view of the statement made on behalf of the respondents that the course in question has already begun and the two vacancies referred to by the petitioner have since lapsed, nothing further survives for consideration in the matter. The prayer made in the writ petition is declined. The writ petition is dismissed along with the pending application.