Rupali Badapanda Vs Director General of Crpf, New Delhi

Questioning the propriety of rejection of candidature vide Rejection Slip dated 21.07.2023 issued/passed by the opposite party No.2-Presiding Officer, DV/DME, CT/GD-2022, Board No.1 on the ground of mismatch in the Application Form and the Original High School Certificate Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court by way of this writ petition craving to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer(s):

¶23

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. Parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why a direction shall not be issued to quash the order of rejection dated 21.07.2023 issued by the opposite party No.2 on the plea of mismatching in High School Certificate between Application Form and Original High School Certificate

¶24

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶25

Page 2 of 24

¶26

taking into consideration her successful in written test as well as physical test as well as the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court of India rendered in between Union of India Versus Pritilata Nanda reported in AIR 2010 SC 2821.

¶27

And after hearing the parties be pleased to quash/set aside the order of rejection dated 21.07.2023 under Annexure-6 issued by the opposite party No.2.

¶28

A further direction be issued to the opposite party No.2 to allow the petitioner to appear in the Medical Test which shall continue till 10.08.2023 and if the petitioner found fit, she may be issued order of appointment.

¶29

And pass such other order/orders granting complete relief to the petitioner.

¶30

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶31

Facts:

¶32

2. Facts, as adumbrated by the writ petitioner, reveal that an advertisement was issued by the Staff Selection Commission on 27.10.2022 for recruitment to the post of Constable in different Central Armed Police Force including the post of Constable of Central Reserve Police Force. Responding to said advertisement, the petitioner made application through online on 14.11.2022. At the time of submission of online application, the Roll Number of the petitioner mentioned in the High School Certificate Examination has been erroneously typed as “18302BB0006” instead of “302BB0024”.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶34

Page 3 of 24

¶35

2.1. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued e-Admission Certificate for “Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination, 2022” by the Staff Selection Commission. On being successful in the written test, the petitioner was allowed to appear in Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for Constable (General Duty) in CAPFs. Being found qualified in the said test(s), she was issued with e- Admit Card for Detailed Medical Examination fixing date of medical test on 21.07.2023 at 6.00am.

¶36

2.2. Before medical examination, the testimonials of the petitioner was verified by the Office. The petitioner submitted all the original documents evidencing her academic qualification(s). On such verification, it was pointed out that the Roll Number given by the petitioner in the Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha does not tally with the Roll Number uploaded in the online Application Form. Accordingly, by issue of Rejection Slip dated 21.07.2023 the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.

¶37

2.3. On receipt of the Rejection Slip dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure-6), the petitioner filed representation (Annexure-7) before the authority concerned on 24.07.2023 with a request to allow her for correction of mistake in feeding the Roll Number in the online

¶38

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶39

Page 4 of 24

¶40

Application Form. The petitioner in her representation explained as follows:

¶41

“ ***

¶42

The humble submission is as follows: The applicant Rupali Badapanda, Daughter of Rajnikanta Badapanda is a resident of Ekadia, P.O.: Siko, District: Khordha, Odisha, 752038. The application of the applicant is as follows that the applicant had applied for the post of SSC GD released on 14.11.2022. At the time of application, due to the mistake of the shop owner, the roll number of the applicant’s tenth class has been typed mistakenly 18302BB0006 instead of 302BB0024, while in reality the roll number of the applicant is 302BB0024. Due to incorrect Roll Number, the applicant was caught with a rejection slip by 2 I/C Enjirkan Kindo of 19BN. When the applicant pleaded to appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, the applicant was refused to accept the application by 2 I/C Enjirkan Kindo, who is currently the Presiding Officer of DV/DME at GC CRPF BBSR.

¶43

It is a humble request to the Respected sir kindly examine the original document of the applicant keeping in mind the above things and provide an opportunity to do correction roll no and medical treatment again. The applicant will always be grateful to you.”

¶44

2.4. Since the aforesaid representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-7 was not considered by the opposite parties, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the rejection of her application vide Rejection Slip dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure-6).

¶45

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶46

Page 5 of 24

¶47

Counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties:

¶48

3. It has been admitted that,

¶49

“On being successfully qualified in Computer Based Examination as well as Physical Efficiency Test/Physical Standard Test, the petitioner was called for document verification/detailed medical examination which was conducted at Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar with effect from 17.07.2023 to 02.08.2023. The petitioner appeared before the DV/ DME, Board No.1 on 21.07.2023 at Group Centre, Bhubaneswar and her candidature was rejected as her Roll Number (302BB0024) mentioned in Matriculation Certificate issued from Board of Secondary Education, Odisha was found different than the online application. Thus, as per guidelines issued by the DIG (Recruitment), Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi letter No.A.VI— 1/2022-Rectt— (SSB) CT/GD-2022 dated 12.06.2023, the petitioner was issued rejection slip on the same day, i.e., 21.07.2023 due to mismatch of her Roll Number.”

¶50

3.1. Refuting the contention of the petitioner, it is affirmed that the candidates must ensure that they have filled up correct details in each field of the Application Form before submission of final online application and after submission of final online application, no change/ correction/modification is allowed under any circumstances.

¶51

3.2. It has further been asserted by the opposite parties that, as per Guidelines contained in paragraph 7.2 of DIG (Rectt), Directorate General, CRPF Letter No.A.VI-l/

¶52

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶53

Page 6 of 24

¶54

2022-Rectt-(SSB) CT/GD-2022 dated 12.06.2023, when scrutiny of documents was undertaken during DV/DME, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature would be cancelled straightaway by the Presiding Officer and a photocopy of the check list shall be provided to the candidate by endorsing proper remarks/reasons of rejection.

¶55

3.3. During document verification of the petitioner by the Recruitment Board, it was noticed that the Roll Number (302BB0024) mentioned in the Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha mismatched with the online application submitted by the petitioner.

¶56

Hearing:

¶57

4. Pleadings, being completed and exchanged between the counsel for respective parties, on their consent, this matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

¶58

4.1. Accordingly, heard Sri Laxmikanta Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Sri Deepak Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

¶59

4.2. On conclusion of hearing, the matter stood reserved for preparation and pronouncement of Judgment.

¶60

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶61

Page 7 of 24

¶62

Rival contentions and submissions:

¶63

5. Reiterating the facts as narrated in the writ petition, Sri Laxmikanta Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that mere error in specifying the Roll Number assigned in the High School Certificate Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, as “18302BB0006” in place of “302BB0024”, could not lead to indicate that the High School Certificate Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha is disputed. The opposite parties have never disputed said certificate and denied the petitioner to have produced wrong certificate. It is only mismatch in the feeding of the Roll Number in the online Application Form. Such trivial mistake being innocuous particularly when the Original Certificate is not disputed, the candidature of the petitioner should not have been rejected.

¶64

5.1. He vehemently contended that the candidate has qualified in every test including the written test, PST/ PET and is eligible for being considered for the post of Constable (General Duty) in CAPFs. Having declared so qualified in the tests conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to correct the typographical error and the opposite parties should not have denied her employment. Rather the opposite parties could have ignored such error.

¶65

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶66

Page 8 of 24

¶67

5.2. Heavy reliance has been placed on Union of India Vrs. Miss Pritilata Nanda, (2010) 8 SCR 733 = AIR 2010 SC 2821 to suggest that once the petitioner’s application was accepted by the authorities and she was allowed to appear in the written and other tests and after her name could find mentioned in the merit list, it was no longer open to the authorities concerned to raise any question relating to petitioner’s application for the purpose of disentitling her from the benefit of issuing her with an appointment letter. Rejection of Application Form on flimsy ground is to be construed to be a gross abuse of the power. Callous attitude of the authorities are writ large in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties. It is indeed unfortunate that a female candidate of remote pocket of the State who applied for a post has been denied appointment on mere typographical error crept in while feeding on to the online Application Form. The Union of India, supposed to be an ideal and model employer, is required show more pragmatic than adopting pedantic approach.

¶68

6. Sri Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India referring to Guidelines dated 12.06.2023 of the Directorate General, CRPF laid stress on the following paragraph thereof:

¶69

“7.2. When scrutiny of document is undertaken during DV/DME, if any claim made in the application is not

¶70

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶71

Page 9 of 24

¶72

found substantiated, the candidature will be cancelled straightaway by Presiding Officer and a photocopy of cheek list by endorsing proper remarks/reasons of rejection be provided duly signed by Presiding Officer to the candidate. Documents produced by the candidate may be kept in the dossier for future reference.

¶73

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.”

¶74

6.1. Having emphasised on said clause of the Guidelines, it is submitted that there is justification in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, inasmuch as it is admitted fact that she has furnished wrong information while filling up the online Application Form.

¶75

Analysis and discussions:

¶76

7. The undisputed factual matrix would depict that,

¶77

i. The petitioner-candidate was found successful not only in written test but also qualified in PST/PET.

¶78

ii. The candidate has furnished the Original Certificate issued by the Board of Second Education indicating that the petitioner has passed the High School Certificate Examination.

¶79

iii. Said certificate evidencing that the petitioner passed Matriculation is admitted.

¶80

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶81

Page 10 of 24

¶82

iii. In the Guidelines dated 12.06.2023, on which reliance has been placed by the opposite parties, it has been stipulated that,

¶83

“7.3. During the process of documents verification and before permitting the candidates for DME, following documents will be checked carefully;

¶84

7.3.1. Matriculation Certificate:

¶85

Must have passed Matriculation and the result of qualifying examination must be declared on or before 01.01.2023.

¶86

Date of Birth on the Matriculation Certificate should be same as filled by the candidate in his/her online Application failing which candidature will be cancelled (DoB is also printed on Admission Certificate).

¶87

Age of the candidate must be between 18-23 years (plus 3 years special relaxation in upper age limit as one time measure as on 01.01.2023, i.e., candidates should not have been born earlier than 02.01.1997 and later than 01.01.2005.

¶88

Note: Due to unprecedented COVID pandemic, it has been decided by the Government to grant three relaxation (3) years age beyond respective prescribed upper age limit for all categories of the candidates as one-time measure for this recruitment.”

¶89

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶90

Page 11 of 24

¶91

7.1. The reason for rejection of candidature of the petitioner has been reflected in the “Rejection Slip” dated 21.07.2021 is this:

¶92

“Rejection due to mismatch in Matric Certificate between Application Form Original Matric Certificate.”

¶93

7.2. Said reason for rejection of candidature tested against the circumstances/eventualities stipulated in paragraph 7.2 of the Guidelines dated 12.06.2023 would make it clear that such reason does not fall within the ken of the circumstances/eventualities envisaged in the said paragraph of the Guidelines.

¶94

7.3. The nature of mismatch which entails rejection of candidature are that:

¶95

i. name,

¶96

ii. father/mother name,

¶97

iii. gender,

¶98

iv. date of birth and

¶99

v. domicile district.

¶100

Nevertheless, the reason for rejection of candidature/ online application of the petitioner does not envisage mismatch in typing out Roll Number. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the petitioner has not fulfilled

¶101

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶102

Page 12 of 24

¶103

conditions given in paragraph 7.3 of the Guidelines, dated 12.06.2023.

¶104

7.4. Thus, mismatch in furnishing the Roll Number in the online Application Form warranting rejection of candidature of the petitioner is arbitrary exercise of power vested in the Board.

¶105

7.5. It is not denied that while typing out the Roll Number in the online Application Form error has crept in. There is no allegation of misrepresentation nor suppression of material fact or undue advantage has been taken by the petitioner.

¶106

7.6. In Sweety Kumari Vrs. The State of Bihar, (2023) 12 SCR 556 the question fell for consideration was:

¶107

“7. In view of the foregoing factual scenario, the questions that fall for consideration before us are as under:

¶108

i) Whether the rejection of the candidatures of the appellants due to non-production of the original certificate at the time of interview by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “BPSC”) is justified?

¶109

ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, what relief can be granted to the appellants?”

¶110

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while answering the question, observed thus:

¶111

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶112

Page 13 of 24

¶113

“19. In the present case, the proof is available and true photocopies were on record. The appellants‟ candidature could not have been rejected merely because the original was not produced before the Commission at the time of interview in particular when such requirement was not mandatory, in view of the manner in which the Rules are couched.

¶114

***

¶115

28. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned judgments dated 03.11.2021, 04.09.2021 and 19.04.2023 passed by the High Court. The appellants Sweety Kumari and Vikramaditya Mishra be accommodated being successful candidate in the 30th Examination and appellant Aditi be accommodated being a successful candidate in the 31st Examination.

¶116

29. We clarify that this judgment is passed in the peculiar facts of the case to mitigate the plea of discrimination to candidates who are before us and who knocked the door of the court well within time. It is made clear here that similarly situated candidates would not be entitled to claim the same benefit further, because they have not come before this Court within a reasonable time.”

¶117

7.7. In Vashist Narayan Kumar Vrs. The State of Bihar, (2024)

¶118

1 SCR 1 it has been observed as follows:

¶119

“11. 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 oblivious of the error produced

¶120

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶121

Page 14 of 24

¶122

the educational certificates which reflected his correct date of birth.

¶123

12. The facts are undisputed. The appellant‟s application uploaded from the cyber café did mention the date of birth as 08.12.1997 while his date of birth as recorded in the educational certificate was 18.12.1997. It is also undisputed that it is the appellant who produced the educational certificates. He was oblivious of the error that had crept into his application form. It is also undisputed that the advertisement had all the clauses setting out that in case the information given by the candidates is wrong or misleading, the application form was to be rejected and necessary criminal action was also to be taken. It also had a clause that the candidates had to fill the correct date of birth, according to their 10th board certificate. The clause further stated that candidates will fill their name, father‟s name, address etc. correctly in the application form. It states that any discrepancy, if found, while checking the documents, the candidature of the candidate will stand cancelled. There was also a clause providing for correction of wrong/erroneously filled application forms, which stated that the errors can be corrected once by redepositing the application fee and filling a new application. It also provided that those filling the application on the last date could correct the application till the following day.

¶124

13. Equally undisputed is the fact that after filling out the application, the appellant cleared the written examination and the Physical Eligibility Test. It was also stated in the counter

¶125

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶126

Page 15 of 24

¶127

affidavit that there were 61 unfilled vacancies though it was submitted that it was meant for the Gorkha candidates.

¶128

14. We are not impressed with the argument of the State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or mis-leading information. We say on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Even the State has not chosen to resort to any criminal action, clearly implying that even they did not consider this error as having fallen foul of the following clause in the advertisement:

¶129

„Instructions to fill online application form are available on the website. It is recommended to all the candidates to carefully read the instructions before filling the online application form and kindly fill the appropriate response in the following tabs. 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.‟

¶130

15. Recently this Bench in Divya Vrs. Union of India & Ors., 2023:INSC:900 = 2023 (13) Scale 730, while declining relief to candidates who acquired eligibility after the date mentioned in the notification carved out a narrow exception. There, the judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra Vrs. Union of India & Ors., (2016) SCC OnLine Del 6563, a case very similar to the facts of the present case, was noted. In Ajai Kumar Mishra (supra), Indira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in para 9 stated as under:

¶131

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶132

Page 16 of 24

¶133

„9. It is true that whenever material any

¶134

discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/ or misrepresentation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors.‟

¶135

The exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the reason that law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle is recognized in the legal maxim: De minimis non curat lex.

¶136

***

¶137

25. On the peculiar facts of this case, considering the background in which the error occurred, we are inclined to set aside the cancellation. We are not impressed with the finding of the Division Bench that there was no prayer seeking quashment of the results declared over the web. A reading of the prayer clause in the writ petition indicates that the appellant did pray for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature treating his date of birth as 18.12.1997 and also sought for a direction for issuance of an appointment letter. A Writ Court has the power to mould the relief. Justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities.

¶138

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶139

Page 17 of 24

¶140

Conclusion

¶141

26. 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 to treat the appellant as a candidate who has “passed”, in the selection process held under the advertisement No. 1 of 2017 issued by the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Patna with the date of birth as 18.12.1997. We further direct that if the appellant is otherwise not disqualified, the case of the appellant be considered and necessary appointment letter issued. 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. We make the said direction, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We further direct that the State will be at liberty in that event to adjust the vacancy in the next recruitment that they may resort to in the coming years. We notice from the written submissions of the State that 21,391 vacancies have been notified in Advertisement No.1 of 2023 and it is stated that the procedure for selection is ongoing. We place the said statement on record. We direct compliance to be made of the aforesaid direction within a period of four weeks from today.”

¶142

7.8. In the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra Vrs. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6553, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court has made the following observation:

¶143

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶144

Page 18 of 24

¶145

“6. There can be no doubt that a candidate applying for a Government job, or for that matter, any job should fill in the Application Form carefully. No candidate can claim any vested right to rectification of arrears in an application. Union Public Service Commission and the State Public Service Commissions deal with lacs of applications, which are received pursuant to an advertisement. Such applications are required to be processed within a short time. A candidate, who is not short-listed and/or not allowed to participate in the selection process by reason of his own laches in making careless mistakes, cannot claim any right to be allowed to participate in the selection process.

¶146

7. It is for the body conducting the selection process to decide whether mistakes should be allowed to be rectified, if so, whether they should be rectified within any specific time and what are the mistakes which can be allowed to be rectified and other similar questions. However, in view of the mandate of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India, there should be no discrimination or arbitrariness in deciding these questions. All candidates applying for the particular post/posts should be treated equally.

¶147

8. This is not a case where the petitioner had not at all been short-listed. It is not a case where the petitioner has not been allowed to participate in the selection process. The petitioner had been allowed to participate and had emerged successful in every stage.

¶148

9. It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/or misrepresentation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the

¶149

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶150

Page 19 of 24

¶151

application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors.

¶152

***

¶153

15. As observed above, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner derived any advantage by entering the wrong date of birth in his online and application. There is a difference between a mere inadvertent error and misrepresentation or suppression. There could be no intentional misrepresentation as the school certificate was submitted. The penalisation of cancellation of the candidature on the ground of a typographical error is arbitrary, unreasonable harsh and disproportionate to its gravity of the lapse. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the pending application also stands disposed of. The impugned order is set aside.”

¶154

7.9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Divya Vrs. Union of India, (2023) 15 SCR 44, while considering the scope of “interference with the decision of the Selecting Body” having noticed the above case of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, observed as follows:

¶155

“80. It will be noticed that UPSC has considered these omissions as trivial and as not going to the root of the eligibility, unlike in the case of the petitioners herein. In Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India

¶156

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶157

Page 20 of 24

¶158

(2016) SCC OnLine Del 6563 (sic. 6553), Indira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court felicitously put the issue about the examining body‟s right to decide as to which errors are material and which are inessential and trivial.”

¶159

7.10. The copies of the testimonials were available with the online Application Form and the candidate was allowed to participate in the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the candidate has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the Advertisement/Guidelines; nonetheless, the petitioner was found successful in written test and PST/PET. The mistake is found in feeding the figures of Roll Number in the online Application Form, which does not comprehend within the connotation of the expression “mismatch” as envisaged in Paragraph 7.2 of the Guidelines dated 12.06.2023.

¶160

7.11. The present case is not a case where any suppression and/or misrepresentation is detected.

¶161

7.12. Taking cue from the above view expressed in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no alternative but to hold that the rejection of candidature of the petitioner vide Rejection Slip dated 21.07.2023 cannot be countenanced.

¶162

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶163

Page 21 of 24

¶164

Conclusion:

¶165

8. The rejection of candidature of the petitioner vide Rejection Slip dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure-6) is not supported by germane consideration inasmuch as the reason ascribed to does not fall within the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 7.3 of the Guidelines No.A.VI1/2022-Rectt (SSB)-CT/GD-2022, dated 12.06.2023 issued by the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force (Recruitment Branch).

¶166

9. In the wake of the above, having diligently considered the undisputed factual matrix, averments and contentions of both the parties, and regard being had to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner vide Rejection Slip dated 12.06.2023 issued by the Presiding Officer, DV/DME, CT/GD-2022, Board No.1 (Annexure6), being found to be jejune, this Court is of the considered opinion that said Rejection Slip in Annexure6 is liable to be set aside and this Court does so.

¶167

9.1. This Court on 08.08.2023 passed interim Order, which is to the following effect:

¶168

“1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶169

2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite

¶170

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶171

Page 22 of 24

¶172

Parties submitted that he has received instruction. On the basis of such instruction, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that in case of mismatch in name, father/mother name, general, DOB and Domicile District, the candidature will be rejected and candidate will not be allowed to participate in further stage I.E., DME.

¶173

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been qualified in the Physical and Written Test.

¶174

4. In such view of the matter, the Opposite parties are directed to permit the Petitioner to participate in the Medical Test. However, the same shall be subject to the final outcome of the present Writ Petition.

¶175

5. List this matter in the 1st week of September, 2023.

¶176

6. Issue urgent certified copy of this order in course of the day.”

¶177

9.2. There is no plea set up at any stage by the opposite parties that the petitioner was disqualified in the Medical Test. Having found the petitioner successful at every stage of examination conducted in the recruitment process, it is, therefore, directed that the opposite parties are required to treat the online Application Form, as submitted by the petitioner as a candidate, is in order.

¶178

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶179

Page 23 of 24

¶180

9.3. It is further directed that as the petitioner is not otherwise disqualified, and there being no misrepresentation or misstatement in the Application Form but for typographical error in filling up the figures of Roll Number, which is of innocuous nature, her candidature be considered and necessary steps be taken to consider appointment of the petitioner.

¶181

9.4. Having given anxious consideration to the instant fact and circumstance, this Court may also observe and direct that in the event there being no vacancy, the opposite parties may also consider appointment of the petitioner in the post applied for on the special facts of this case.

¶182

10. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above terms, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.

¶183

(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE

¶184

Signature Not Verified

¶185

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 20-Feb-2025 18:08:40

¶186

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

¶187

The 20^th February, 2025//MRS/Suchitra

¶188

W.P.(C) No.23736 of 2023

¶189

Page 24 of 24

Rupali Badapanda v. Director General of Crpf, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupali Badapanda v. Director General of Crpf, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rathu Nath Nayak Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secy.to Govt.

Debasmita Swain Vs Rakesh Kumar Pradhan

Susri Sujani Das @ Sushree Sujnanai @ Sushree Sugyani Das Vs Satyabrata Barik

Sk.Zakir Hussain Vs Avit Ruparnab@Sultan

Sk.Zakir Hussain Vs Avit Ruparnab@Sultan

Daya Banchhor Vs Special Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Khariar