The only reason was that, while in the application form uploaded online, his date of birth was shown as 08.12.1997, in the school mark sheet, his date of birth was reflected as 18.12.1997. He prayed for the relief in the nature of a mandamus to the respondents to consider his claim for selection and direct them to issue an appointment letter treating the date of birth as 18.12.1997, as reflected in his educational certificates. It was their stand that the advertisement had clearly stipulated that candidates should correctly mention their date of birth according to their 10 board certificate; that if any discrepancy was found while matching the information, the candidature would be cancelled; that the candidate should read the instructions carefully and if any information is found false or wrong, then the application form would be cancelled and legal action will also be taken.
The Division Bench, while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, additionally recorded a finding that the appellant had not sought for quashing of the result, as declared on 11.06.2018, on the website.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/high-court-analyzes-evidence-in-land-scam-anticipatory-bail-case/
Admittedly, the appellant derived no advantage as even if either of the dates were taken, he was eligible; the error also had no bearing on the selection and the appellant himself being 6 oblivious of the error produced the educational certificates which reflected his correct date of birth. There was also a clause providing for correction of wrong/erroneously filled application forms, which stated that the errors can be corrected once by re-depositing the application fee and filling a new application.
In case, the information given by the candidates found wrong or misleading, the application form will get rejected and necessary criminal actions will also be taken against the candidate.” Recently this Bench in Divya vs Union of India & Ors.
It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/ or mis-representation is detected, 9 the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process.
Sangeetha vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (2018)
SCC OnLine Mad 5075
[Paras 9 & 11] iii) Anuj Pratap Singh vs Union Public Service Commission, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10982 [Paras 15,16 & 21] iv) Shubham Tushir vs Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9831
[Paras 4 & 10] v) Staff Selection Commission & Anr.
First of all, the form was a printed form which reflected the date of birth as given by the appellant and the appellant signed the printed form on 10.03.2018. In one of the cases cited as a precedent in the counter affidavit, before the High Court, Pankaj Paswan vs State of Bihar Anr. Learned counsel for the State, in the written submissions, stated that the instructions clearly stipulated that if two or more candidates obtain the same marks in the Physical Eligibility Test, their relative rank in the final merit list could be determined on the basis of their date of birth.
Qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than the Teacher’s Training Certificate, because the nature of the training imparted for 15 grant of certificate and for grant of degree was totally different. In the case of Rohit Kumar (supra), the undisputed facts, as is clear from para 10 of the judgment, was that the candidate was declared unsuccessful on two counts, namely, that the OBC certificate uploaded by the candidate was not as per the format as mentioned in the advertisement and additionally on the ground that the date of issuance of the certificate was wrongly mentioned in the online application. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in LPA No 1271 of 2019 dated 22.08.2022 and direct the respondent-State 17 to treat the appellant as a candidate who has “passed”, in the selection process held under the advertisement We further direct that, in the event of there being no vacancy, appointment letter will still have to be issued on the special facts of this case. (J.K.
Case Title: VASHIST NARAYAN KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2024 INSC 2)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000001-000001 / 2024
