Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1306 (PAT)

Amrit Raj v. State of Bihar

2013-11-18

RAKESH KUMAR

body2013
ORDER : RAKESH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Basant Kumar Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Govt. Pleader No. 26 appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 and Sri Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4/Central Selection Board (Sipahi Bharti). Bihar. The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of letter contained in Memo no. 463 dated 20.6.2013, issued under the signature of the Secretary, Central Selection Board (Sipahi Bharti), Bihar, Patna i.e. Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby selection of the petitioner as Sipahi (Constable), Rail, Patna has been cancelled on the ground that in the application form instead of writing the name of his father Vibhishan Yadav, he has disclosed as Vibhishan Prasad Yadav. 2. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner pursuant to Advertisement no. 1/2012, which was issued against existing vacancy of 7606 constables, being eligible applied and he participated in the selection process. He qualified in the written test as well as physical test. Finally, he was selected and vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, he was allotted the District i.e. Rail Unit, Patna. The said Annexure-6 was issued under the signature of the Secretary, Central Selection Board (Sipahi Bharti), Bihar, Patna. However, subsequently, it was noticed that in the application form, the petitioner had committed serious error and in view of declaration made by the petitioner in his application form itself, the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled vide Annexure-1 i.e. letter dated 20.6.2013. 3. Sri Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while pressing the present writ petition, submits that immediately after receipt of Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the petitioner with all other certificates and affidavit approached the Secretary, Central Selection Board (Sipahi Bharti) regarding the fact that it is true that the name of father of the petitioner was Vibhishan Yadav, but due to inadvertence, it was written as Vibhishan Prasad Yadav in the application form. He submits that only on hyper-technical ground, the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled, which requires interference. 4. Sri Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents/Central Selection Board (Sipahi Bharti) has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that only on hyper-technical ground, the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled, which requires interference. 4. Sri Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents/Central Selection Board (Sipahi Bharti) has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He, while referring to Annexure-D to the counter affidavit of Respondent nos. 2 to 4, submits that in the application form itself, the petitioner in his own pen has written his father's name as Vibhishan Prasad Yadav and thereafter in column 19, a declaration was made by the petitioner that if anything is found wrong or false, his candidature can be cancelled. He submits that since the information furnished by the petitioner in the application form was itself incorrect, in accordance with law his candidature was cancelled vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which requires no interference. He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported in (2008)9 SCC 403 ; T. Jaykumar v. A. Gopu & Anr., has held that even if signature of a candidate in an application form is lacking, then in that event his candidature can be cancelled. Taking aid to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Sri Pandey, learned counsel for the Respondents/Central Selection Board (Sipahi Bharti) has argued that the selection of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled, which requires no interference. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that as per provisional certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, which has been brought on record, it is evident that father's name of the petitioner is Sri Vibhishan Yadav, whereas in the application form, the petitioner has mentioned as Vibhishan Prasad Yadav. It appears that only due to inadvertence, the petitioner had mentioned in the application form as Vibhishan Prasad Yadav. From Annexure-2 series to the writ petition, it is evident that the Registration Card issued by Bihar School Examination Board mentions the name of father and mother of the petitioner. It is not a case that the petitioner by making any impersonation had got his selection but only due to bona fide mistake, he instead of mentioning his father's name as Vibhishan Yadav, he has mentioned Vibhishan Prasad Yadav, for which the petitioner may not be allowed to suffer. It is not a case that the petitioner by making any impersonation had got his selection but only due to bona fide mistake, he instead of mentioning his father's name as Vibhishan Yadav, he has mentioned Vibhishan Prasad Yadav, for which the petitioner may not be allowed to suffer. So far the case of T. Jaykumar's case is concerned, the fact of the case is not identical to the fact in issue. Moreover, in the said case, candidature was itself cancelled, at the very outset of selection, since application was found without any signature. This is not the case of the petitioner. The petitioner only due to inadvertence had mentioned his father's names as Bivishan Prasad Yadav instead of Vibhishan Yadav and even thereafter he was selected as constable and assigned Rail Unit, Patna. On such hyper-technicality, the selection of the petitioner was not required to be cancelled. Accordingly, by adopting principle of equity, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order requires interference and, as such, Annexure-1 stands set aside with a direction to the Respondents to proceed with the process of appointment in respect of the petitioner forthwith. The writ petition stands allowed.