JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Rai, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. As the facts involved in both the cases are common and, hence, they are being decided by this common judgment and order. 3. The petitioner had completed his Engineering Graduation from Harcourt Butler Technical University and in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the opposite parties had filled and applied online form on 13.1.2022 to participate in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2021. It is when the petitioner tried to download the admit card on 5.4.2022 that he came to know that his application form has been rejected by the opposite parties as the photographs appended therein was with goggle/spectacle. It is further submitted that the petitioner approached the office of the opposite parties on 6.4.2022 along with photograph without goggle/spectacles and requested that he may be given the admit card so that he can appear in the said examination. 4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition A No.2080 of 2022 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to consider the candidature of the petitioner and issue admit card and allow him to participate in Tier-I Examination of Staff Selection Commission Combined Graduate Level Examination 2021. 5. This Court by means of order dated 8.4.2022 passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to appear provisionally in the examination scheduled to be held on 11.4.2022. The petitioner appeared in the said examination and has subsequently filed second writ petition being writ A No.4083 of 2022 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to declare the result of the petitioner and permit him to appear in Tier II and III of the Combined Graduate Level Examinations, 2021 scheduled to be held on 8th and 10th August, 2022 and 21.8.2022 respectively and further to declare the result and appoint him in case he is found to be successful. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requirement of a photograph without spectacle has to be interpreted reasonably. In case any condition or prescription is arbitrary, the same can be interfered by this court in exercise of Article 226 of the constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requirement of a photograph without spectacle has to be interpreted reasonably. In case any condition or prescription is arbitrary, the same can be interfered by this court in exercise of Article 226 of the constitution of India. It has been submitted that the purpose of submitting a clear photograph is that the candidate can be clearly recognised and identified and therefore, there is no infirmity with the condition that this photograph should be without a cap and both the ears should be visible, as it is difficult to recognise a person wearing a cap and so is case when the face is not fully visible, and therefore both ears should be visible. It is submitted that this is not the case of a photograph with a spectacle of a thin rim where the face of the candidate is clearly visible and not hindered by the spectacle and therefore there is no reason for rejection of his form and candidature on this count, for appearing in the said examination. 7. Sri Ambrish Rai, Advocate appearing for the opposite parties has opposed the writ petition submitting that notice of the Combined Graduate Level dated 23rd December, 2021 instructions clause 9.7 makes it clear to the aspirants that before submitting online applications the candidates must check that they have filled correct details in each field and form and clause 3 also clearly states that if the proper photograph is not uploaded by a candidate, his candidature will be cancelled. Specimen of photograph which are acceptable /not acceptable is given in Annexure-V. It was further stated in clause (f) that when application is successfully submitted, it will be accepted ‘Provisionally’ and will be subject to further confirmation. It has been submitted that despite notice and specific stipulation being made in the instructions that photograph was required to be in particular format the details of which are as follows:- “(s) In the online application form, candidates are required to upload the scanned colour passport size photograph in JPEG format (20 KB to 50 KB). The photograph should not be more than three months old. Image dimension of the photograph should be about 3.5 cm. (width) x 4.5 cm. (height). The photograph should be without cap, spectacles and both ears should be visible. The photograph should not be more than three months old. Image dimension of the photograph should be about 3.5 cm. (width) x 4.5 cm. (height). The photograph should be without cap, spectacles and both ears should be visible. If the proper photograph is not uploaded by a candidate, his candidature will be cancelled. Specimen of photographs which are acceptable/not acceptable is given at Annexure -V.” 8. It has further been stated that according to the notice for the said examination in clause 11 a window from 28.1.2022 to 1.2.2022 was given for correction of the application forms. It was stated that even after the closing date for receipt of online applications the Commission had provided a period of 5 days to enable the candidates to correct/modify the online application parameters, wherein candidates were allowed to re-submit applications after making requisite correction/changes in the one-time registration/online application data as per their requirement. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner did not avail of the said provisions where he could have uploaded correct photograph without goggles/spectacle but even the said time was not utilized by him for correcting the application and consequently he was never issued admit card. 10. It was lastly submitted that the guidelines issued in the advertisement are applicable uniformly to all the candidates and the compliance of the conditions stated therein are mandatory and in case the application forms are not filled in the manner prescribed the same are liable to be rejected and, hence, it was stated that there is no infirmity in the rejection of the application form of the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that it was mandatory on part of the respondents to have intimated him about the defect in the application form before requiring them to correct the same in the window provided from 28.1.2022 to 1.2.2022. He submits that no information or notice was given to the petitioner and, therefore, he could not correct the form and, hence, he lost his valuable rights to correct the form and consequently prayed that he may be permitted to appear in all the stages of the selection examination and participate in the same. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had a photograph with spectacle which was clearly contrary the notice itself. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had a photograph with spectacle which was clearly contrary the notice itself. The stipulation with regard to photographs had clearly been stated in the instructions to the candidates whereas in clause (I): the application with illegible/blurred photographs/signature will be rejected summarily. 14. A copy of the application form has also been annexed along with the writ petition which clearly shows that the face of the petitioner is clearly visible and the spectacle has a very thin rim which does not interfere or cover his face in any manner from which it can be said that his identification is difficult with the spectacle. His entire face is visible without any obstruction. 15. It is too well settled to make any further reiteration that all appointments in public offices has to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In another words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue condition to be incorporated in advertisement or the instructions with regard to the manner of filling up of the form. 16. The conditions prescribed for filling up the application forms have to be just fair and reasonable and should not be arbitrary without having any nexus with the purpose of filling up the application form. The purpose for calling for a photograph along with the application form is only for the purposes of identification of the candidate. For the purposes of identification it is necessary that a clear photograph should be appended. In case the photograph is not clear, or a person is wearing a cap, or a portion of his face is not visible from the angle from which photographs taken, apparently such a photograph would not conform to the standards prescribed, and the candidature may be liable for rejection, but this may not be true for a person wearing a rimless spectacle or a spectacle with this rim. 17. In the entire counter affidavit the respondents could not explain or defend their condition prescribed in the notice with regard to a “photographs with a spectacle”. A person with poor eyesight normally wears spectacles as a matter of habit. 17. In the entire counter affidavit the respondents could not explain or defend their condition prescribed in the notice with regard to a “photographs with a spectacle”. A person with poor eyesight normally wears spectacles as a matter of habit. Even when a photograph of such a person is taken it is only with spectacles, and the same photograph is appended by the candidates in various application forms which are submitted by him for appearing in various selections. There may be cases where a a dark coloured glass on the spectacle may obstruct the clear view of the face and the same clearly would be impermissible, but on the other hand rimless spectacles or a spectacle with a thin rim may not obstruct the clear view of the face and hence, such a photograph cannot be rejected. A goggle or dark coloured glass cannot be equated with a rimless spectacle, and the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, only on the ground that he was wearing spectacle is clearly arbitrary in the particular facts of this case. 18. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the omnibus provided in the instructions for filling up the application form for the Combined Graduate Level Examination-2021 with regard to be photographs without a spectacle it is clearly arbitrary. The candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner was wearing a spectacle, as his face was fully and clearly visible without any obstruction. 19. This Court at the interim stage had permitted the petitioner to appear provisionally in the examination. In pursuance to the interim order he appeared in the examination and it has further been submitted that according to the “uploading of tentative answer key” with the candidates response sheets of the Combined Graduate Level Examination TIER-I-2021 the petitioner has scored more than the cut off marks and it has been submitted that he is fully eligible to appear in the TIER-II open Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2021 which is scheduled on 8th and 10th August 2022. 20. It has been stated that the result of the examination has not been declared with regard to the petitioner as he was only provisionally permitted to appear which is subject to the further directions of this Court. 21. In light of the above the writ petitions are allowed. 20. It has been stated that the result of the examination has not been declared with regard to the petitioner as he was only provisionally permitted to appear which is subject to the further directions of this Court. 21. In light of the above the writ petitions are allowed. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for the reason that he was wearing a spectacle is clearly arbitrary and, hence, the opposite parties are directed to declare the result of the petitioner for TIER-I examination and provide him admit card so that he can appear in the remaining examinations of the Combined Graduate Level Entrance Examinations-2021.