JUDGMENT : 1. In the present case, petitioner appeared for appointment on the post of Agniveer (GD) and according to procedure of recruitment, participated in Army Recruitment Rally under the Agniveer Scheme, held from 05.09.2022 to 23.09.2022. Petitioner cleared Physical Fitness Test (PFT) on 06.09.2022 and then the Medical Test on 16.09.2022. Thereafter, petitioner was permitted to appear in written examination and has also declared pass in the written Common Entrance Exam (CEE) on 13.11.2022 and finally came to be shortlisted in the merit list. However, at the stage of documents verification, candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by issuing a rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022 (Ann.10) issued by the Army Recruitment Officer, District Jhunjhunu, for the reason “Incorrect document produced”. Petitioner, by way of instant writ petition, has assailed the rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022 and since the petitioner has already come in merit, prayed to direct the recruitment agency-respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Agniveer (GD). 2. Heard learned counsels for both parties and perused the material placed on record. 3. As a matter of fact, the issue in this writ petition, is in respect of production of a copy of Scholar Register (SR) of petitioner of Class 3rd from Bharti Balmandir Upper Primary School, Pilod, Jhunjhunu, wherein date of birth of the petitioner dated 10.07.2001 has been altered/corrected as 10.7.2002. The respondent No.3-recruitment agency observed that such correction in date of birth in the Scholar Register of Class 3rd of the petitioner, was done without prior sanction to the concerned District Education Officer and in violation to directions issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner vide order dated 22.11.2021 (Ann.R/5). In addition, it was also observed that the petitioner got carried out such correction in the date of birth in the Scholar Register, on 20.12.2022, it means post dated to the date of his participation in the Army Recruitment Rally on 06.09.2022 and further the petitioner also produced false self declaration certificate of back dated of 14.07.2008 as well as prepared false affidavit of his father under his own signatures, in order to justify the correction in the date of birth in Scholar Register of Class 3rd from 10.07.2001 to 10.07.2002. Respondent No.3-recruitment agency further observed that the petitioner himself has accepted all such misdeeds on his part as also for preparing his self-declaration in back date and affidavit of his father fraudulently, in writing, vide a letter dated 20.12.2022 (Ann. R/11). Therefore, for such reasons, candidature of the petitioner was rejected by issuing rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022 by the respondent No.3, who in reply to writ petition, has tried to justified the rejection of candidature of the petitioner, due to production of incorrect documents of Scholar Register of Class 3rd and preparing false documents in respect of change of his date of birth from 10.07.2001 to 10.07.2002 in Scholar Register, placing reliance on Para Nos.17(c) & 17(p) of the notification, followed in the present recruitment rally as well as relied upon the provisions contained in Part-II: Section-II Eligibility Criteria and verification of Character and Antecedents of recruits of Army under the Recruitment Directive for Recruitment of Junior Commissioned Officer’s/Other Ranks 2014 issued by the Directorate, Recruiting Branch, IHQ of Ministry of Defence (Army). 4. According to the petitioner, his actual date of birth is 10.07.2002, as indicated in his mark sheet of 8th Optional Board of Examination-2014 as well as in the mark sheet of Secondary Examination-2016, issued by the Board of Secondary, Rajasthan. In the Scholar Register for Class 3rd, the date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 10.07.2001, which was corrected as 10.07.2002, in order to bring all the documents in similar line to verify his date of birth as 10.07.2002. In respect of corrections of date of birth in Scholar Board of Class 3rd, it has been submitted by the petitioner that the same was done at the school level, after furnishing the requisite documents of self declaration and affidavit of his guardian. The letter dated 20.12.2022 (Ann.R/11) was disputed that the same was got written under coercion by the respondent-Authority. Thus, it has been submitted from the side of petitioner, that rejection of candidature of the petitioner by way of issuing rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022 is arbitrary, harsh and illegal exercise on the part of respondents, whereas petitioner being a meritorious candidate, deserves appointment on the post of Agniveer on merits. Hence, it has been prayed that the rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022 be quashed and the petitioner be given appointment on the post of Agniveer (GD). 5. Hence, it has been prayed that the rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022 be quashed and the petitioner be given appointment on the post of Agniveer (GD). 5. At the outset, it may be observed that change in date of birth from 10.07.2001 to 10.07.2002 in the Scholar Register of Class 3rd, does not affect the eligibility of the petitioner for consideration of his candidature in the age criteria. Petitioner falls within the age criteria according to the date of birth 10.07.2001 as well as accordingly to 10.07.2002. It is also not in dispute that in the other credential documents of petitioner i.e. mark sheet of 8th Optional Board of Examination-2014 as well as the mark sheet of Secondary Examination-2016, the date of birth of petitioner is 10.07.2002. Thus, in the present case, petitioner has not gained any benefit of getting change/altered his date of birth from 10.07.2001 to 10.07.2002 in the Scholar Register of Class 3rd. 6. It may further be observed that according to notification of respondent, as per Clause 17(c), authentic and required document in order to prove the date of birth of the candidate is the certificate of 10th /12th Class, hence even as per norms of the respondent, Scholar Register of Class 3rd of petitioner cannot be taken as authentic and sufficient prove of date of birth. As far as certificates of petitioner for Class 8th Optional Board of Examination-2014 as well as for Class 10th it means the mark sheet of Secondary Examination-2016, in both mark sheets of petitioners, issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, his date of birth is 10.07.2002. The mark sheets of petitioner for Class 8th & 10th issued by the Board of Secondary Education, are genuine, authentic and admissible proof of his date of birth as 10.07.2002 and it is not the case of respondents that mark sheets of the petitioner for Class 8th & 10th, indicating his date of birth as 10.07.2002, are incorrect, fraudulent or forged documents, in any manner. 7. It appears that in the present case, respondent No.3 has extended undue weightage to change the date of birth of petitioner in the Scholar Register of Class 3rd which indeed is insignificant and not material document. 7. It appears that in the present case, respondent No.3 has extended undue weightage to change the date of birth of petitioner in the Scholar Register of Class 3rd which indeed is insignificant and not material document. A perusal of Para Nos.17(c) & (p) of the notification of respondent which has been followed in the present recruitment rally, indicates that a candidate is required documents of Matriculation/Intermediate/10+2/Graduation certificate and mark sheets in original, issued from the recognized Board of Education to prove his educational qualifications and date of birth. It is not in dispute that petitioner has produced his original documents of 8th and 10th standard issued from the recognized Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, which are authentic and admissible documents, to prove of his educational qualification as well as date of birth. It is true that a Note to Clause 17(p) of notification is appended in following terms “The Enrolling Officer Will have The Right to Reject any Candidate At Any Stage In Case Requisite Documents Are Not Provided”. But the candidature of petitioner has not been rejected for the reason of not providing requisite documents of educational qualification and in support of date of birth. Therefore, Para Nos.17(c) & (p) of notification do not support the cause on account of which the candidature of petitioner has been rejected vide impugned rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022 (Ann.10). 8. But the candidature of petitioner has not been rejected for the reason of not providing requisite documents of educational qualification and in support of date of birth. Therefore, Para Nos.17(c) & (p) of notification do not support the cause on account of which the candidature of petitioner has been rejected vide impugned rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022 (Ann.10). 8. In respect of contention of respondent that petitioner has not followed the procedure to carry out amendment/alteration in his date of birth from 10.07.2001 to 10.07.2002 in Scholar Register of Class 3rd is concerned, it may not be denied that such alteration was done at the level of school authorities without seeking prior approval from the concerned District Education Officer as required in terms of the letter dated 22.11.2021 (Ann.R/5) issued by the Director, Secondary Education, however, petitioner has produced one letter dated 28.12.2022 (Ann.8) issued from the Office of Chief Block Education Officer, Ex-Officio BRCF, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu to the concerned District Education Officer indicating therein that in the admission form of petitioner, submitted for taking admission in Bharti Balmandir Upper Primary School, Pilod, Jhunjhunu, his date of birth is mentioned as 10.07.2002, but in the school record, date of birth erroneously came to be indicated as 10.07.2001, which was corrected on the request of petitioner, on submission of his self declaration as well as affidavit of his guardian. In this way, it appears that correction/alteration in date of birth of the petitioner in the Scholar Register of Class 3rd was done by the school authorities and merely due to a slight defiance/deniation to follow the terms of letter dated 22.11.2021 (Ann. R/5), not obtaining prior approval/sanction from the concerned District Education Officer, the correction so made, may not be treated to have an effect that the alteration is illegal or fraudulent. More so, when such alteration is not that much material or significant and does not affect merits of the case of petitioner particularly in respect of his eligibility on the point of date of birth. 9. As far as letter dated 20.12.2022 (Ann.R/11), alleged to be signed by the petitioner is concerned, petitioner has disputed this letter alleging the same to be signed under cohesion. 9. As far as letter dated 20.12.2022 (Ann.R/11), alleged to be signed by the petitioner is concerned, petitioner has disputed this letter alleging the same to be signed under cohesion. Otherwise also, petitioner produced photocopy of the Scholar Register of Class 10th as amended in respect of his date of birth from 10.07.2001 to 10.07.2002 and his date of birth 10.07.2002 stands fortified/verified from the other authentic and admissible documents of mark sheets of Class 8th & 10th of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. That apart, in the application form (Ann.1) of petitioner for getting admission in the school, his date of birth was indicated as 10.07.2002, so it may not be disbelieved that indication of date of birth in the Scholar Register of Class 3rd as 10.07.2001 was an accidental error committed on the part of school authorities, which has been corrected after bringing to their notice about the alleged error in the record. Be that as it may, in overall facts and circumstances, document of Scholar Register of Class 3rd is not so much authentic and admissible document, which is otherwise not a required document by the respondent to prove the date of birth and hence the document being immaterial and insignificant, the candidature of petitioner has wrongly been rejected, taking note of the fact that the document of Scholar Register of Class 3rd with alteration in the date of birth of petitioner, is tantamount to production of incorrect documents. To prove the date of birth of petitioner that of 10.07.2002, petitioner has already produced mark sheets of 8th and 10th standard, from the recognized Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, which are authentic, genuine, valid and admissible documents to prove the date of birth, according to the notification of respondents. That apart, it is not the case that petitioner has derived any benefit by seeking alteration/correction in his date of birth from 10.07.2001 to 10.07.2002 in Scholar Register of his school for Class 3rd. Therefore, after the aforesaid discussions and reasons, rejection of candidature of petitioner by issuing rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022 (Ann.10), for the reason of “Incorrect document produced” may not be countenanced and is liable to be held as arbitrary and illegal exercise of powers by the respondent No.3. 10. Therefore, after the aforesaid discussions and reasons, rejection of candidature of petitioner by issuing rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022 (Ann.10), for the reason of “Incorrect document produced” may not be countenanced and is liable to be held as arbitrary and illegal exercise of powers by the respondent No.3. 10. As far as contention of counsel for respondents that petitioner is guilty for ensuing the process of alteration/correction in his date of birth in the Scholar Register of Class 3rd by producing a false back-dated self declaration and by producing the fraudulent affidavit of his guardian and due to which the conduct of petitioner has been held to be unfair and according to the Recruitment Directive for the recruitment of Junior Commissioned Officer’s/Other Ranks-2014, this Court does not find any force in such contention. In the forgoing paragraphs, it has been observed that there appears no deliberate intention of petitioner to adopt a wrong procedure in order to carry out the correction in his date of birth in the Scholar Register and the same was done at the level of school authorities, more so, the petitioner has indisputably not derived any benefit from correction in his date of birth in the Scholar Register from 10.07.2001 to 10.07.2002. Therefore, respondents have wrongly applied the recruitment directives to the case of petitioner to assume his character and conduct as non satisfactory and to observe that if petitioner is recruited on the post of Agniveer (GD), the same may set a wrong precedent and may lead to encouragement for attempting fraudulent activities. Reasonings assigned by respondents in their reply, are based on assumptions and presumptions and merely hypothetical in nature or at the more it is tantamount to making a mountain of mole. It is not a case where the petitioner can be held of bad character or bad antecedents within the parameters of recruitment directives of respondents. Thus, the rejection of candidature of petitioner, on such ground is arbitrary and cannot be affirmed by this Court. 11. Learned counsel for respondents pointed out that the process of recruitment of the Agniveer (GD) has been over and as many as 472 candidates have been finally selected, who have been sent for training to their respective centres w.e.f. 01.02.2023. However, counsel for petitioner is not able to make any statement in respect of non availability of the vacant posts for Agniveer in the prsent scheme. However, counsel for petitioner is not able to make any statement in respect of non availability of the vacant posts for Agniveer in the prsent scheme. More so, the present petitioner has come up before this Court by filing present writ petition on 24.01.2023, soon after rejection of his candidature vide rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022. Thus, it is not the case where the vacant post of Agniveer (GD) for petitioner would not be available with respondents and the petitioner has approached to this Court against his rejection of candidature, before completion of selection process. 12. In case of Purushottam Vs. Chairman, M.S.E.B. [ (1999) 6 SCC 49 ], the Apex Court dealt with the issue as to whether a duly selected person for being appointed and illegally kept out of employment on account of untenable decision on the part of employer, can be denied said appointment on the ground that the panel has expired in the meantime? The Apex court in Para No.4 observed that right of appellant to be appointed against the post to which he has been selected, cannot be taken away on the pretext that the said panel has in the meantime expired and the post has already been filled by someone else. Usurpation of the post by someone else is not on account of any defect on the part of appellant, but on the erroneous decision of the employer himself. In that view of matter, appellant’s right is to be appointed to the post, has been illegally taken away by the employer. 13. The analogy and ratio decidendi expounded by the Apex Court in case of Purushottam (Supra) is applicable to the case of petitioner, since it is not in dispute that petitioner is meritorious candidate and has already been shortlisted for appointment on the post of Agniveer (GD), after clearing Physical Fitness Test, Medical Test and the written Common Entrance Test. Mere correction in his date of birth in the Scholar Register of Class 3rd, does not affect the eligibility of petitioner on account of his date of birth, as it is not in dispute that petitioner has produced documents of Class 8th and 10th, issued by the recognized Board of Secondary Education to prove his date of birth as 10.07.2002. The allegation of alteration/change in the date of birth of scholar register of Class 3rd is otherwise has been found immaterial and insignificant. The allegation of alteration/change in the date of birth of scholar register of Class 3rd is otherwise has been found immaterial and insignificant. That apart, it is settled proposition of law that technicalities of trivial nature, which have no impact on merits of the case, should not be allowed to be impeded in advancement of justice. Thus, rejection of the candidature of petitioner vide rejection certificate dated 30.12.2022 (Ann.10) is liable to be declared as arbitrary and de hors to the notification of respondents. 14. As a result, the writ petition succeeds. Respondents No.1 & 3-recruitment authorities are directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on the post of Agniveer (GD), after ensuing required procedure of documents verification as well as to ensure for training to the petitioner after appointment as Agniveer (GD) pursuant to present Army Recruitment Rally under the Agniveer Scheme. 15. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.