Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 31st December 2019
Deepika Vs Union Public Service Commission., W.P.(C) 13038/2019
Facts of the Case:
- Pursuant to a notification dated 10.04.2019 issued by the respondent for conducting Combined Medical Services Examination, 2019 the petitioner uploaded her application on 28.04.2019. She was issued an admit card in the first week of July, 2019. The examination was held on 21.07.2019 and the result was declared on 16.08.2019.
- At the time of appearing in the examination, it was however pointed-out to the petitioner that instead of filling her name in the application form, she filled the name of her mother. The petitioner made a representation for correction of the name on 20.08.2019; but by an order dated 09.09.2019, the respondent refused to accede to her request, which led to the filing of the OA, before the Central Administrative Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’), which stands dismissed.
- Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Tribunal the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted and placed reliance on the guidelines for filing-up the online Detailed Application Form (DAF), more particularly para 11 of the DAF which provides for correction of errors in filling-up of the form and reads as under:
“Candidates may note that some of the fields namely Candidate’ s name, Date of Birth, Father’ s name, Mother’s name, email address, Physically Challenged category, Disability percentage etc. have been prepopulated using the information provided by the candidate at the time of filling up the earlier Online Application Form for writing the Written Examination/Preliminary Written Examination. Such fields cannot be changed by the candidate. However, if a Candidate notes any error/discrepancy in these fields, he may make a separate detailed representation to the Commission including all relevant documents, in support of his claim. The Commission will decide each such case on merit and its decision in such cases shall be final.”
- Further it was also submitted that the petitioner’s case cannot be equated with a case of wilful and mala fide default, with intention of providing false information or documents; and that it was a case of genuine and inadvertent error ; and the consequences are not commensurate with the error which has been committed by her.
- Learned counsel of the respondents have submitted that in a matter like this, this Court and the Supreme Court have not allowed such relief having regard to the fact that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which conducts several nationwide examinations, receives a large number of applications every year; and if such laxity is allowed or condoned, it will be virtually impossible for the UPSC to meet deadlines and compile the details which are required to be sent to user departments.
Issue:
- Whether , in the facts of the present case, the petitioner should be allowed to correct a bona fide error in the application form?
Held:
- The Court has found force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this case cannot be equated with a case of wilful or mala fide attempt at providing false information or false/fabricated documents ; or a case where a candidate intends to mislead the respondent in any manner. No doubt the respondent receives a very large number of applications ; and it cannot possibly be making corrections in such applications, but a reading of para 11 of the DAF shows that a provision has been made even for change of name in the application form, amongst other things.
- It was stated that the fields mentioned in Para 11 of the DAF cannot be changed by the candidate ; however a provision has been made that if a candidate notes any error/discrepancy in these fields, they may take recourse by making a separate, detailed representation before the Commission, including all relevant documents in support of his or her claim.
- While the representation was made by the petitioner and stands rejected, the court was of the view that the interpretation of para 11 of DAF adopted by the respondent is narrow and over-restrictive since the error committed by the petitioner is clearly unintentional and bona fide. It was also stated that, the error committed by the petitioner, though fundamental, is not informed with any malice, mala fides or sinister reason. It was also noted that, from the record annexed to the petition, the identity of the petitioner is verifiable and not in doubt. It is also seen that the respondent has issued the admit card with the petitioner’s photograph, though with the mother’s name.
- Accordingly, the court is disposed to exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the petitioner’s favour, since it considered this to be a deserving case where the candidature of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected by reason of an innocent and inadvertent error committed by her. While so opining, the court also conscious that by way of this order, the petitioner would only be able to participate in the interview ; and whether or not she ultimately succeeds will be known in the normal and usual course. It was made clear that this order is not intended to be used as a precedent.
- In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within two weeks with the High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) Legal Aid Society. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set-aside. The court has directed the UPSC to carry-out the necessary correction in the petitioner’s application form. Consequently, the petitioner will be allowed to participate in the ensuing interview.
- The writ petition stands disposed of. The oral order passed today shall be communicated by the learned counsel for the respondent to the UPSC today itself.
- The application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ petition.
Leave a Reply