Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 264 (JK)

Deepak Sharma v. Union Of India

2021-06-01

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1) In this petition, petitioner has, inter alia, sought the following reliefs: (i) Writ of Mandamus: commanding the Respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the interview/Medical Examination, the process of which, is going on for the post of CT/GD and appoint and select the Petitioner against the post in pursuance to the Advertisement advertised vide Notice No.F.No.3/2/2OI7-P85P-I Dt: 21.07.2018 on the basis of final result of the Petitioner. (ii) Further issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider and treat the petitioner's mothers’ name as Neetu Sharma instead of Neetu Devi, which has occurred on account of system error and inadvertently; 2) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the Staff Selection Commission on 21st July, 2018, issued a notice of examination for recruitment of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), National Investigation Agency (NIA), Secretariat Security Forces (SSF) and Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles, which was uploaded on the official website of the Commission on 25th of July, 2018. As per the notification, the last date for submission of online application was 30th September, 2018. 3) The petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process. The petitioner cleared all stages of examination but was not permitted to appear in the medical examination on the ground that in the online application submitted by him he had written his mother’s name as “Neetu Devi” whereas the name of his mother, as per the matriculation certificate, was “Neetu Sharma”. 4) The petitioner claims that he requested the respondents to permit him to correct the aforesaid inadvertent mistake and, accordingly, allow him to participate in the medical examination so that he could be selected and appointed against one of the posts of Constable (GD). Having failed to persuade the respondents to accept his request, petitioner has filed the instant petition. 5) On being put on notice, the respondents, represented by Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI, have filed their objections. It is not disputed by Mr. Sharma that the petitioner, by dint of his merit, has made the grade but could not be permitted to participate in the medical examination for the reason that some discrepancy was found in the name of his mother indicated in the online application different from the one shown in the matriculation certificate uploaded by the petitioner. Sharma that the petitioner, by dint of his merit, has made the grade but could not be permitted to participate in the medical examination for the reason that some discrepancy was found in the name of his mother indicated in the online application different from the one shown in the matriculation certificate uploaded by the petitioner. 6) It is also noteworthy that pursuant to interim directions passed by this Court on 26th of February, 2020, the petitioner has been permitted to participate in the medical examination. Mr. Sharma, ASGI, has fairly conceded that the petitioner has also qualified the Medical Examination/test and made it to the select list. 7) On being asked by this Court, Mr. Sharma also submitted that in as many as 27 posts of Constable (GD) which were earmarked for ex-servicemen category have remained unfilled and as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement notification and the rules in vogue, same are required to be filled up from the candidates belonging to the general category. He. However, submits that the petitioner who had submitted wrong particulars of his parentage cannot take the benefit of his own wrong. 8) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record, I am of the view that the discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s mother as “Neetu Devi” instead of “Neetu Sharma” is not so serious as would take away his right to appointment, which right the petitioner has earned on the basis of his merit. 9) In similar set of circumstances, Delhi High Court, in the case of Ravi S. Rathod v. Union of India & anr. (Writ Petition (C) No.2343 of 2020) decided on 11.03.2020, directed the respondents to consider the candidature of a candidate in whose case discrepancy had been found with regard to the date of birth entered in the online application form and the one entered in the matriculation certificate. 10) That aforesaid judgment has been followed by the Bombay High Court also in the case of Vipul L. Bamane vs. Union of India & anr. (Writ Petition (ST) No.92903 of 2020). 11) The case of the petitioner herein squarely falls within the four corners of the judgments supra. 12) This petition is, accordingly, allowed. 10) That aforesaid judgment has been followed by the Bombay High Court also in the case of Vipul L. Bamane vs. Union of India & anr. (Writ Petition (ST) No.92903 of 2020). 11) The case of the petitioner herein squarely falls within the four corners of the judgments supra. 12) This petition is, accordingly, allowed. The name of the petitioner’s mother i.e. ‘Neetu Devi’ as indicated in the online application shall be deemed to be substituted by ‘Neetu Sharma’ i.e. the name indicated in the matriculation certificate of the petitioner. Accordingly, ‘The respondents are directed to consider and appoint the petitioner against the post of Constable (GD) that has fallen vacant due to non-availability/non-selection of the candidates under ex-servicemen category, the discrepancy noted by the respondents notwithstanding. 13) Let a formal order of appointment of the petitioner be issued by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date copy of this order is served upon the respondents. 14) Disposed of along with connected applications.