Recruiting Authority Cannot Be Held Responsible For Candidate's Errors in Application Forms: Delhi High Court

The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain observed, "In our view, no such direction as prayed by the petitioner can be granted. A candidate for any examination is expected to verify the details and make necessary corrections before finally submitting the online application. A candidate cannot be allowed to approach the Court stating that they realised their mistake only when he/she failed to qualify. Such post-failure claims for correction are not entertainable. There may be numerous other candidates who similarly filled wrong particulars and were excluded. Giving benefit to one candidate now would deny the same benefit to others, disturbing equality. The recruiting authority cannot be held responsible for the petitioner’s own mistakes. The terms of the Advertisement explicitly provided that before applying, candidates should go through the given instructions carefully and that requests for change/correction in any particulars in the Application Form, once submitted would not be entertained. To this extent the Judgment of this Court in Amarnath Maurya (supra) cannot come to the aid of the petitioner."

Advocate GS Chaturvedi appeared for the Petitioner, while SPC Rajesh Kumar appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable in the Delhi Police. When submitting the online application, she inadvertently made clerical errors, mistakenly indicating 'Yes' for Column 15 (Departmental Candidate) and 'No' for Column 16 (Ward of Delhi Police Personnel), despite being the daughter of a serving Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in the Delhi Police.

After qualifying for the written examination, she appeared for the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PEMT). At the PEMT, she physically submitted original documentation, including her father's employment certificate, which confirmed her eligibility for relaxation as a ward of a police officer. Based on these documents, her height was measured (154.5 cm), and she was initially declared qualified, having been granted the necessary height relaxation (required height: 157 cm).

The same day, officials discovered the conflict between her physically submitted documents and the entries in the initial online application form. Despite the petitioner submitting immediate representations, the respondents issued an order on 23.08.2021, declaring her disqualified in height by withdrawing the relaxation, citing her incorrect online form data.

The petitioner subsequently filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking correction of the admitted clerical errors and reinstatement of her candidature with the entitled relaxation. The Tribunal dismissed her O.A., leading the petitioner to file the present petition challenging the Tribunal's decision.

Contention of the Parties

The Petitioner argued that the errors in marking Column Nos. 15 and 16 of the online form were a clerical, bona fide, and minor mistake, attributable to the Petitioner's lack of computer proficiency, reliance on cyber café personnel, and heavy load on the application website. Further, he contends that Column 15 (Departmental Candidate) is irrelevant for the post of Constable. Crucially, the counsel emphasized that the Petitioner produced all necessary original documents, including her father's police employment certificate, at the PEMT, leading to her initial qualification with the granted height relaxation as a ward of police personnel.

The Respondents submitted that the candidates were advised in their own interest to submit online applications much before the closing date and not to wait till the last date to avoid the possibility of disconnection/inability or failure to log in to the SSC website on account of heavy load on the website. He added that it was advised that before submission of the online application, candidates must check that they had filled correct details in each field of the form. After submission of the online application form, no change/correction/modification would be allowed under any circumstances, and the requests received in this regard would not be entertained.

Observations and Findings of the Court

The issue that arose for consideration was whether the petitioner was entitled to correction of clerical errors in the online application form regarding her eligibility for relaxation in physical standards at a stage subsequent to qualifying the written examination and PEMT, on the grounds of bona fide mistake.

"As far as the reliance of the petitioner on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) and of this Court in Ajay Kumar Mishra (supra) is concerned, we find that the said Judgments also do not come to the aid of the petitioner. Therein, the errors involved were mere typographical mistakes concerning the date of birth of the candidates. These mistakes had no bearing on the candidate’s eligibility as they otherwise fulfilled the requisite criteria and were hence held to be trivial in nature. As far as the present case is concerned, however, the answer to Column 16 was fundamental to the eligibility of the petitioner as it would have entitled her to height relaxations which she required in order to fulfil the requisite criteria.", the Court said.

The Court noted that the argument of the petitioner regarding Column ‘15’ of the Advertisement was redundant. "The relevance of Column ‘15’ was for the respondent to judge, and the petitioner having participated in the selection process, cannot claim any field in the application form to be redundant or immaterial. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been declared ineligible for giving a wrong answer to Column ‘15’.", the Court held.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Nisha Khan v. Delhi Police & Anr. [Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:11194-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate GS Chaturvedi

Respondents: SPC Rajesh Kumar and Advocate Yash Narain.

Click here to read/download the Judgment