ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or directions: (1) That rejection slip dated 01.08.2023 (annexure no. 6) is quashed and set-aside. (2) That respondents may kindly be directed to grant appointment on the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, as per the annexure no. 1 (3) That Any other appropriate order or direction by which this Hon’ble court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. Costs the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. As per the pleaded facts, an advertisement for recruitment of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), SSF, Rifleman (GD) for the vacancy year 2022 was issued by the respondents and the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs in OBC category, whereafter an online Computer Based Examination was conducted by Staff Selection Commission (SSC), after qualifying the same, the petitioner was called for Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test (PST/PET) and qualified in this as well. Subsequently, an e-admit card was issued to the petitioner for Document Verification and Detailed Medical Examination, which was scheduled to be held on 01.08.2023. The petitioner appeared for the same before the concerned authority, however, the respondents rejected petitioner’s candidature informing him of the mismatch of home address in form, Domicile and Caste Certificate. 2.1. Thereafter a representation was moved by the petitioner before the respondent no. 3 with regard to the mismatch of home address, however no reply was received to the same. Thus, aggrieved of the action of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred the present petition claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason assigned for rejection of the petitioner’s selection was mismatch of home address as the address mentioned in the application form of petitioner was “Devraj Nagar, Khadeen, Ramsar, Barmer, Rajasthan” instead of “Rajiv Nagar, Khadeen, Ramsar, Barmer, Rajasthan” and instead of providing the petitioner with a chance to rectify the said typographical mistake and prove the veracity of his correctness of his home address, the respondents simply rejected the petitioner’s candidature. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards copy of aadhar card, OBC certificate, 10th marksheet, 12th marksheet, Bonafide Resident Certificate to showcase that the Home address of the petitioner is in fact “Rajiv Nagar”. 3.1. Learned counsel also submits that the mistake made by the petitioner was a common mistake and was not such that could not be rectified; further, the petitioner had not taken any advantage nor mislead the respondents in order to secure his selection on the post in question and placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikash Kumar Yadav vs. Union of India and Others in W.P. (c) 12610/2023, C.M. Application Nos. 49726, 49727 of 2023, decided on 25.09.2023. Learned counsel further submits that there are catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of Hon’ble High Courts allowing candidates for appointment in similar situated circumstances. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the Board of Officers examined the documents of the petitioner as per the guidelines issued by Nodal Force CRPF vide letter No. A. VI-1/2022-Rectt (SSB)-Ct/GD-2022 dated 12th June 2023 and the advertisement published by the SSC. Further, as per the aforesaid advertisement, it was clearly mentioned under the head of “Procedure for filing online Application” cautioning the candidates that their details should be filled exactly as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate and candidature may get cancelled in case of wrong/incorrect information. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that in Para 7.1 & 7.2 under the heading of the aforementioned guidelines, certain prescriptions have been made; relevant portion of which reads as under: “7. Documents verification: 7.1...........All certificates/testimonials (viz. D.O.B. name, essential qualification, caste certificate including OBC certificate as per Govt. of India list of OBCs, SCs and STs certificate, domicile certificate, identity verification of the candidates at all stages of exam etc) be verified/checked........... 7.2..............IN CASE OF MISMATCH IN NAME, FATHER/MOTHER NAME, GENDER, DOB AND DOMICILE DISTRICT, THE CANDIDATURE WILL BE REJECTED AND CANDIDATE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN FURTHER STAGE I.E., DME.” 4.2. of India list of OBCs, SCs and STs certificate, domicile certificate, identity verification of the candidates at all stages of exam etc) be verified/checked........... 7.2..............IN CASE OF MISMATCH IN NAME, FATHER/MOTHER NAME, GENDER, DOB AND DOMICILE DISTRICT, THE CANDIDATURE WILL BE REJECTED AND CANDIDATE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN FURTHER STAGE I.E., DME.” 4.2. Learned counsel further submits that during the document verification, the petitioner had produced various Certificates including Domicile Certificate, Residence Certificate, OBC certificate wherein in all such Certificates, the address was different when compared to the application form filled by the petitioner; consequently, the Document Verification Board rejected the candidature of the petitioner while stating, “Mismatch in Home Address in Domicile and Caste Certificate” 4.3. Learned counsel also submits that the merit list has already been published by the SSC on its web portal on 20.08.2023 and offer of appointment to the post of Ct (GD) have also been issued by all CAPFs including BSF on 28.08.2023; in furtherance, the action of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner by the respondents was done in a fair and impartial manner and no fundamental/legal/statutory rights of the petitioner were violated. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs in OBC category in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, whereafter he qualified the online Computer Based Examination and also the Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test (PST/PET) conducted by the respondents and was finally called for the Document Verification and Detailed Medical Examination; however, during document verification, it was found that the home address so filled in the application form of the petitioner did not match with the address given in the above mentioned Certificates submitted by the petitioner, thus the candidature of the petitioner was rejected in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines of the Nodal Force CRPF and the advertisement. 7. This Court further observes that an interim order dated 04.09.2023 is operating in favour of the petitioner in this case; the same is reproduced as hereunder: “1. 7. This Court further observes that an interim order dated 04.09.2023 is operating in favour of the petitioner in this case; the same is reproduced as hereunder: “1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that only on account of a minor mismatch in the home address indicated in the online application form and the domicile caste certificate/other documents, the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected, which is not justified. 2. In view of the submissions made, copy of the petition be served on Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy. S.G. who puts in appearance for the respondents, he may complete his instruction in the matter/file reply. 3. List the matter on 04.10.2023. 4. In the meanwhile and till the next date, one post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs pursuant to the Examination-2022 in petitioner’s category be kept vacant. 5. Office is directed to reflect name of Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, DSG as counsel appearing for the respondents in the cause list.” 8. This Court also observes that though as per the above mentioned guidelines caution in the afore-quoted Para 7.1 & 7.2 of the aforementioned guidelines had been given to the candidates participating in the recruitment process with regard to the filling of application form in the present matter, nothing other than the home address filled in the application form by the petitioner has been found to be incorrect when compared to the Certificates produced by the petitioner at the time of Document Verification by the concerned authority, and that too, the difference lies in only writing the village name as “Devraj Nagar” instead of “Rajiv Nagar” the mistake being such that by itself the same does not grant any undue benefit to the petitioner and nor does it hamper upon the rights of any other candidates. 9. This Court further observes that the petitioner has been declared qualified in all the examination and tests for the post in question and is a meritorious candidate, which is clearly evident from Annexure-2, 3, 4 and thus, after clearing all the rounds of the recruitment process, the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected only on the basis of a typographical mistake, which is not justified in law. 10. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the simple mistake of writing a different ‘Nagar’ name is not such that could lead to unfair advantage to the petitioner and thus petitioner being a meritorious candidate, the present petition deserves to be allowed. 11. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and while quashing the impugned rejection letter dated 01.08.2023, and respondents are directed to take all consequential steps towards recruitment of the petitioner for the post in question, if he is otherwise eligible for the same; however, all the consequential benefits, shall be accrued to the petitioner prospectively. All pending applications stand disposed of.