The High Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner filed an online application in the wrong category despite a clear condition barring corrections after submission, holding that such errors must be borne by the applicant to maintain administrative integrity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6010 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sanju Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vikas Budhwar,Yogendra Kumar
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
“If prospective teacher can not even correctly fill up the simple on line application form for his employment, it is obvious what he is going to teach if appointed. There are certain decisions cited on this issue. But none of them deal with this aspect whether under the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the
2
Constitution of India such incompetent persons should be allowed to play with the future of the next generation.”
“The contention that this was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made on line. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a result of human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly . No fault can, therefore, be found in rejecting the application for correction …..”
3
Constitution, this Court is not expected to pass whimsical orders not founded on any logic but dependent on individual discretion and wisdom. When instructions issued by authority inviting applications are very clear, there is no reason to create disturbance in the scheme of such instructions, by passing orders on judicial side on the basis of consideration of facts in individual cases.
Order Date :- 28.02.2019 Manish Himwan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can permit correction to an online application form filed in the wrong category despite an explicit condition barring subsequent alterations.
Whether exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to correct a procedural error would cause administrative disturbance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Manohar Yadav vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Special Appeal No. 834 of 2013 (Ram Manohar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others)
Smt. Arti Verma vs. State of U.P.Referred¶14
Special Appeal (Defective) No. 123 of 2014 (Smt. Arti Verma vs. State of U.P. and others)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanju
Union Of India
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
