Ankit Chaudhary vs STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC)
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
Central Administrativ
ve Tribunal
Principal Bench, Ne
ew Delhi
No.327/2026, O.A. No. 34
468/2026, O.A. No. 474/2
O.A.
43/2026, O.A. No.
2026, O.A. No.
731/2026, O.A. No. 741
No.742/2026, O.A. No. 74
No.744/2026, O.A. No. 74
o.1861/2026, O.A. No.1976
/2026, O.A.
43/2026, O.A.
45/2026, O.A.
No
6/2026 and O.A.
No.2459/202
6
Order reser
Order pronoun
rved on 01.10.2026
nced on 22.10.2026
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khat
g, Member (J)
H
ti, Member (A)
Item
ANKIT
Aged
S/o S
R/o V
Muza
(Cand
NR 32
67. O.A. No.327/2026
T CHAUDHARY,
about 30 years,
Shri Mahaveer Singh,
Village: Mahalki, Tehsil: Ja
affarnagar, Uttar Pradesh 2
ansath,
251314
didate Towards the post of
Driver General,
2623)
…...Applicant
Versus
1. The C
Chairman,
Staff
Block
Lodhi
2. The R
Selection Commission
k No. 12, CGO Complex,
i Road, New Delhi – 11000
3
Regional Director (NR),
Staff
Block
Lodhi
Selection Commission,
k No. 12, CGO Complex,
i Road, New Delhi – 11000
3
…Respondents
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
2
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
Item6
ANKIT
Aged
S/o U
Tehsi
Rajas
(Can
NR 32
68. O.A. No.343/2026
T YADAV,
about 27 years,
Umed Singh, Village - Bhun
ngara Ahir,
heer, Alwar,
il: Mudawar, Bhoongara Ah
sthan-301427,
didate Towards the post of
2623))
f Driver General,
…...Applicant
Versus
1.
Staff
Block
Lodhi
The Chairman,
Selection Commission
k No. 12, CGO Complex,
i Road, New Delhi – 110003
3
2.
Staff
Block
Lodhi
The Regional Director (NR)
Selection Commission,
k No. 12, CGO Complex,
),
i Road, New Delhi – 110003
3
…Respondents
Item
Hanu
DOB:
S/o K
R/o B
Chha
Distt-
69. O.A. No.468/2026
uman Sahai Bunkar
21/7/1996
Kanaram Bunkar
Bunkar Mohalla
apura Khurd, Tehsil - Shah
hpura
-Jaipur, Rajasthan-303103
3
…...Applicant
Versus
1. St
throu
Block
CGO
New D
taff Selection Commission
ugh Secretary
k No. 12, 4th Floor
Complex, Lodhi Road
Delhi-110003
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
3
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
2. Reg
Staff
Block
CGO
Lodhi
gional Director (NR)
Selection Commission
k No. 12,
Complex
i Road, New Delhi-110003
3. Mil
inc.
HQ, K
Rajaji
New D
litary Engineering Services
s (MES) through E-
Kashmir House
i Marg, Defence HQ
Delhi-110011
4. Ch
HQ (A
New D
hief Engineer
AF) WAC, Palam
Delhi-110010
…Respondents
Item
Hario
S/o S
R/o H
PO-Ja
UP-20
70. O.A. No.474/2026
om, Age-28 years,
Shri Ravindra,
H.No. 369, Sharfuddinpur J
Javli,
avli, District-Ghaziabad,
01102
…...Applicant
Versus
1. Un
Throu
Minis
Pensi
Depar
North
2. The
Milita
Minis
E-in-C
Rajaji
3. Sta
nion of India
ugh the Secretary,
stry of Personnel, Public Gr
rievances &
ions,
rtment of Personnel & Trai
h Block, New Delhi-110001
ining,
1.
e Director General,
ary Engineer Services (MES
stry of Defence,
S),
C's Branch, Kashmir Hous
i Marg, New Delhi-110011
se,
aff Selection Commission (S
SSC)
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
4
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
Throu
Block
Lodhi
4. Reg
Staff
Block
Lodhi
ugh its Chairman,
k No.-12, CGO Complex,
i Road, New Delhi-110003.
.
gional Director
Selection Commission (Nor
k No.-12, CGO Complex,
rthern Region),
i Road, New Delhi-110003.
.
…Respondents
Item
Rahu
aged
S/o M
R/o G
Jaipu
72. O.A. No.731/2026
ul Yadav
about 24 years
Mr. Mahaveer Yadav
Gram Panera, Baner, Tehsi
ur, Rajasthan-303105
il - Kotputli
…...Applicant
Versus
1. Sta
Throu
North
Block
Lodhi
2. Un
Minis
Throu
South
New D
3. Mil
Throu
Kashm
New D
aff Selection Commission
ugh its chairman
hern region
k no. 12, CGO Complex
i Road, New Delhi-110003
nion of India
stry of Defence
ugh Secretary (Defence)
h Block
Delhi-110001
litary Engineer Services
ugh Engineer in Chief
mir House
Delhi-110011
…Respondents
Item
Haris
aged
S/o S
73. O.A. No.741/2026
sh Chand
about 25 years
Sh. Chhitar Mal
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
5
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
R/o V
Tehsi
Rajas
VPO Toolera, Alwar,
il & District-Alwar,
sthan-301001
…...Applicant
Versus
1. Staff
Selection Commission
ugh its chairman
hern region
k no. 12, CGO Complex
Throu
North
Block
Lodhi
2. Union
i Road, New Delhi-110003
n of India
stry of Defence
Minis
Throu
South
New D
3. Milita
ugh Secretary (Defence)
h Block
Delhi-110001
ary Engineer Services
Throu
Kashm
New D
ugh Engineer in Chief
mir House
Delhi-110011
…Respondents
Item
Abhis
aged
S/o S
R/o N
Allaha
74. O.A. No.742/2026
shek Mishra
about 26 years
Sh. Rakesh Prasad
Nevadiya Meja Khas,
abad, Uttar Pradesh-21230
02
…...Applicant
Versus
1. Staff
Selection Commission
ugh its chairman
hern region
k no. 12, CGO Complex
Throu
North
Block
Lodhi
i Road, New Delhi-110003
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
6
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
2. Union
n of India
stry of Defence
Minis
Throu
South
New D
ugh Secretary(Defence)
h Block
Delhi-110001
3. Milita
ary Engineer Services
Throu
Kashm
New D
ugh Engineer in Chief
mir House
Delhi-110011
…Respondents
Item
Abhis
aged
S/o S
R/o V
Tehsi
Rajas
75. O.A. No.743/2026
shek
about 31 years
Sh. Boyat Ram
VPO, Ghanghu,
il - Churu, Dist.-Churu
sthan-331001
…...Applicant
Versus
1. Sta
Throu
North
Block
Lodhi
2. Un
Minis
Throu
South
New D
3. Mil
Throu
Kashm
New D
aff Selection Commission
ugh its chairman
hern region
k no. 12, CGO Complex
i Road, New Delhi-110003
nion of India
stry of Defence
ugh Secretary (Defence)
h Block
Delhi-110001
litary Engineer Services
ugh Engineer in Chief
mir House
Delhi-110011
…Respondents
Item
76. O.A. No.744/2026
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
7
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
Desh
aged
S/o S
R/o P
Sikar
Raj Moond
about 29 years
Sh. Pappu Singh
Pipla Ki Dhani, VPO-Baral,
r, Rajasthan-332405
…...Applicant
Versus
1. Sta
Throu
North
Block
Lodhi
2. Un
Minis
Throu
South
New D
3. Mil
Throu
Kashm
New D
aff Selection Commission
ugh its chairman
hern region
k no. 12, CGO Complex
i Road, New Delhi-110003
nion of India
stry of Defence
ugh Secretary (Defence)
h Block
Delhi-110001
litary Engineer Services
ugh Engineer in Chief
mir House
Delhi-110011
…Respondents
Item
Deepa
aged
S/o N
R/o V
Tehsi
Rajas
77. O.A. No.745/2026
ak Sharma
about 28 years
Nathu Lal Sharma,
VPO-Shimbhupura, Vill-Ma
aroth,
il-Nawa, Dist-Nagaur,
sthan-341507
…...Applicant
Versus
1. Sta
Throu
North
Block
aff Selection Commission
ugh its chairman
hern region
k no. 12, CGO Complex
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
8
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
Lodhi
2. Un
Minis
Throu
South
New D
3. Mil
Throu
Kashm
New D
i Road, New Delhi-110003
nion of India
stry of Defence
ugh Secretary (Defence)
h Block
Delhi-110001
litary Engineer Services
ugh Engineer in Chief
mir House
Delhi-110011
…Respondents
Item
Anku
S/o S
R/o-
Mawa
84. O.A. No.1861/2026
ur Yadav
Shri Devendra Yadav
V.P.O Tofapur, Meerut,
ana Tehsil, Pin code 25040
01
…...Applicant
Versus
1.
Union of India
ugh its Chief Secretary
stry of Home Affairs,
Throu
Minis
Gover
North
New D
rnment of India,
h Block
Delhi-110001.
2.
Staff Selection Commission
ugh its Secretary
n
Throu
(Unde
Block
Lodi R
New D
er the Ministry of Do P.T)
k no. 12, CGO Complex
Road,
Delhi 110003
…Respondents
Item
SITA
S/o R
85. O.A. No.1976/2026
RAM MEENA, Aged about
Ram Khiladi Meena,
32 years,
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
9
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
R/o 4
PO: R
(Cand
NR32
491, Nangal Bas, Reni
Reni, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan
n-301409
didate Towards the post of
2623)
Driver ST,
…...Applicant
Versus
1.
The Chairman,
Selection Commission
k No. 12, CGO Complex,
Staff
Block
Lodhi
i Road, New Delhi-110003
2.
The Regional Director (NR)
Selection Commission,
k No. 12, CGO Complex,
),
Staff
Block
Lodhi
i Road, New Delhi-110003
…Respondents
Item
Deepa
S/o D
R/o V
Tehsi
Behro
87. O.A. No.2459/2026
ak Kumar Yadav
Dharam Chand Yadav,
Village Chouki Gordhanpur
ra,
li
il Kotputli, District Kotputl
or, Rajasthan- 303108
…...Applicant
Versus
1. Sta
throu
Block
Lodhi
aff Selection Commission N
ugh its Regional Director
Northern Region
k No.12, CGO Complex,
i Road, New Delhi-110003
2. Mil
Defen
throu
Rajaji
New D
litary Engineering Service,
nce,
ugh its Director, Kashmir H
Ministry of
House,
i Marg, Defence Headquart
Delhi-110011
ter,
…Respondents
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
10
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
( Advocates
s for the Applicant(s) in
their respective
O.A.(s) : Mr
r. Yogesh Kumar Mahur,
Mr. T. D. Yadav,
Mr. Rajesh
h Kumar Chauhan, Ms.
Esha Mazumdar
with Mr.
Setu Niket & Mr. Man
nish Kumar, Mr.
Abhishek,
Mr. Prashant Sagar Yada
av with Mr. Vikas
Chauhan,
Mr.Arun Kumar with
Mr. Pushpender
Kumar & M
Mr. Praveen Singh)
( Advocates
s for the Respondent(s) i
n their respective
O.A.(s) : M
Mr. Rajpal Singh, Mr. Vas
suchit Anand, Ms.
Geetanjali
Sharma, Mr. Anmol Pa
ndita, Mr. Vishan
Kumar, Ms
s. Ritu Mishra, Mr. Syed A
Arif, Mr. Shailendra
Tiwary, M
Mr. Subhash Gosai, Mr.
Acharya Santosh
Prasad Ch
aurasia, Mr. Akash Karan
Sinswar, Mr. S. K.
Mr. Vijendra Singh)
Tripathi, M
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
11
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
O R D E R
By H
Since
on’ble Mr. Manish Garg, M
Member (J):
e the issues involved in th
he present batch of
Original A
Applications are similar an
nd arise out of the
rejection
of the candidature of t
the applicants at
different st
tages of the recruitment p
process for the post
of Civil M
Motor Driver (Ordinary G
Grade), Post Code
NR32623,
advertised under Phase-X
XI/2023, the same
were being
g taken up together for he
earing and are now
being disp
osed of through this comm
mon order with the
consent of
f the learned counsel for th
e parties.
1.1 The
individual Original Appl
lications, however,
involve cer
rtain peculiar discrepanci
ies relating to the
particulars
s furnished in the online
application forms
vis-à-vis th
he supporting documents
s produced by the
applicants
during the stage of Doc
ument Verification
and scrutin
ny.
2. The p
principal issues raised in th
he present batch of
OAs, inter
alia, include discrepancie
es in the dates and
period of
experience, mismatch in
the name of the
employer o
or organisation, variation in
n the particulars of
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
12
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
educationa
al institutions, discrepa
ancy in the roll
number m
mentioned in the Class
X certificate, and
differences
s in the particulars relatin
ng to the nature of
employmen
nt.
2.1 In O.
.A. No. 327/2026 , the
issue relates to a
discrepanc
cy between the period
d of experience
mentioned
d in the application form an
nd that reflected in
the suppor
rting documents.
2.2 In O.
A. No. 343/2026 , the dis
screpancy concerns
the dates o
of the relevant period of exp
perience.
2.3 In O.
A. No. 468/2026 , the app
plicant is stated to
have men
tioned the school in the
e application form
differently
from the particulars
appearing in the
experience
e certificate.
2.4 In O.
A. No. 731/2026 , the dis
screpancy pertains
to the com
mmencement date of experi
ience mentioned in
the online
e application form vis-à-v
vis the experience
certificate.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
13
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
2.5 In O
.A. No. 741/2026 , the
issue concerns a
mismatch
in the roll number mentio
oned in the Class X
certificate.
2.6 In O.A
A. No. 742/2026 , the dis
crepancy relates to
a mismatc
h in the name of the organ
nisation mentioned
in the onl
line application form vis-
-à-vis the relevant
supporting
g document.
2.7 In O
.A. No. 743/2026 , the
issue concerns a
mismatch
in the name of the organis
sation mentioned in
the onlin
e application form and
d the experience
certificate.
2.8 In O.A
A. No. 744/2026 , the dis
crepancy relates to
the descr
ription of the employe
er or nature of
employmen
nt in the application fo
form vis-à-vis the
experience
e certificate.
2.9 In O
O.A. No. 745/2026 , the
e issue concerns
discrepanc
cies in the name of the org
ganisation and the
dates men
ntioned in the applicatio
on form and the
experience
e certificate.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
14
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
2.10 In O.A
A. No. 2459/2026 , the ap
pplicant challenges
rejection a
at the stage of scrutiny on
n the ground of an
alleged mis
smatch in the name of th
e organisation and
the dates,
notwithstanding the exp
erience certificates
relied upon
n by the applicant.
2.11 The r
remaining matters in the
present batch also
arise from
m the rejection of candidat
ture on account of
discrepanc
cies in the particulars
furnished in the
application
n forms and the supporting
g documents.
3. The
common thread runni
ing through the
arguments
s advanced by learned
counsel for the
applicants
is that the rejectio
on of applicants
candidatur
re on account of disc
crepancies in the
particulars
s furnished in the online
application forms
vis-à-vis t
the supporting documen
nts is unjustified,
particularl
ly where, according
to them, such
discrepanc
cies are inadvertent in n
nature and do not
affect their
r substantive eligibility for
the post.
3.1 Learn
ned counsel contended th
hat the applicants
possessed
the requisite driving exp
perience and other
prescribed
qualifications as on the
crucial date, and
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
15
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
that the
supporting certificates p
produced by them
sufficiently
y establish the same.
3.2 It is a
applicants’ case that varia
ations in the name
of the emp
ployer or organization, the
e particulars of the
educationa
al institution, or the dat
tes and period of
experience
e ought not to have resul
lted in rejection of
candidatur
re without examining
whether such
discrepanc
cies had any material b
bearing upon the
fulfillment
of the prescribed eligibility
y conditions.
3.3 Accor
rding to learned counsel f
for the applicants,
the respon
ndents have adopted an
unduly technical
approach
by treating such discre
epancies as fatal,
without a
appreciating the distinc
tion between an
inadverten
nt error in an application fo
orm and a material
misreprese
entation affecting eligibility
y.
3.4 The p
principal contention adva
anced on behalf of
the applic
cants is that they are
not seeking any
relaxation
of the essential qualificati
ions, any alteration
of the elig
gibility criteria, or the ben
nefit of experience
acquired a
after the crucial date. R
Rather, they seek
considerat
ion of their candidature o
on the basis of the
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
16
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
qualificatio
ons and experience whi
ich, according to
them, they
y already possessed and w
which are reflected
in the supp
porting documents submit
tted by them.
3.5 It wa
s submitted that the relev
vant clauses of the
recruitmen
nt notice, particularly Clau
uses 10.5 and 11.8,
ought to b
be construed harmoniously
y and applied in a
manner t
hat takes into account
the nature and
consequen
nce of the discrepancy in e
each case. Learned
counsel a
accordingly contended
that, where the
underlying
g documents are genuine a
and the prescribed
eligibility
requirement is otherw
wise satisfied, an
inadverten
nt or clerical error should
not automatically
lead to reje
ection of candidature unle
ess the discrepancy
is found to
o affect substantive eligibi
ility or the fairness
of the selec
ction process.
3.6. In su
upport of these submission
ns, learned counsel
for the a
applicants have placed r
reliance upon the
Court in Vashist
judgments
s of the Hon’ble Supreme
Narayan K
Kumar v. State of Bihar ,
(2024) 11 SCC 785
SC 2, and Divya v. Union
of India , (2024) 1
: 2024 INS
SCC 448
as well as the judgment of
f the High Court of
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
17
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
Delhi in Aj
jay Kumar Mishra v. Uni
ion of India , 2016
SCC OnLin
ne Del 6553. Reliance has
s also been placed
upon Roh
hit Gami v. Union of In
ndia through the
Chairman
, Staff Selection Commis
ssion and Others ,
W.P. No. 1
19419/2020, decided on
25.03.2026 by the
High Court
t of Madhya Pradesh. The
aforesaid decisions
are relied
upon by learned counse
el to support their
contention
n that the nature and effec
ct of a discrepancy
in a recrui
itment application must b
be examined in the
context of
the applicable eligibility c
conditions and the
supporting
g material on record, and t
that an inadvertent
error havi
ing no material bearing
upon substantive
eligibility
ought to be disting
guished from a
misreprese
entation which affects
s a candidate’s
entitlemen
nt to participate in the selec
ction process.
3.7. Learn
referred to Reena
ned counsel have further
Rani v. Un
nion of India , O.A. No. 14
409/2021, decided
ribunal on 27.09.2022; U
Union of India v.
by this Tr
Sunil Kum
mar , W.P. (C) No. 4829/
/2017; and Girish
Kumar Sh
harma v. Union of India
and Others , W.P.
(C) No. 57
19/2023, decided on 08.0
4.2026, in support
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
18
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
of their s
submissions concerning
the treatment of
discrepanc
cies in recruitment particul
lars.
3.8. Refer
made to Food
ence has also been
Corporatio
on of India v. Rajiv Ku
umar , cited in the
CC 793, and MPSC
written su
bmissions as (2019) 5 SC
v. Sandee
ep Shrivastava , cited as (
(2019) 6 SCC 362.
ment in Nisha Khan v.
Delhi Police and
The judgm
Another ,
W.P. (C) No. 12698/2
2023, decided on
12.12.2025
5, has also been referred t
to in the context of
the distin
nction between a discrep
pancy that affects
substantiv
ve eligibility and one that i
is merely technical
in nature.
3.9. The l
learned counsel for the ap
pplicants sought to
distinguish
h cases in which an incorr
rect entry results in
an imperm
missible claim to an eli
igibility benefit or
relaxation
from the present ca
ses, where their
contention
n is that the prescribed
d experience was
independen
ntly possessed on the cruc
cial date. Thus, the
common s
submission of learned co
ounsel is that the
impugned
rejections ought not to be
e sustained merely
on accoun
nt of a mismatch in the pa
articulars furnished
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
19
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
in the onli
ine application forms, with
hout examining the
nature of
f the discrepancy, the
genuineness and
contents o
of the supporting documen
nts, and its actual
impact, if a
any, upon the applicants’ e
eligibility under the
recruitmen
nt notice. It was, therefor
re, urged that the
candidatur
re of each applicant be
considered in the
light of th
he applicable eligibility c
onditions and the
documents
s placed on record and fu
urther prayed that
the impugn
ned orders rejecting applic
cants’ candidature
be set as
side and the respondent
ts be directed to
consider th
heir candidature for the p
post of Civil Motor
Driver (O
rdinary Grade), in acco
ordance with the
applicable
recruitment conditions a
and the documents
placed on
n record, by treating the
e discrepancies in
question a
s inadvertent and non-mat
terial, wherever the
same do no
ot affect substantive eligibi
ility.
4. Per c
contra, the common subm
mission of learned
counsel ap
ppearing on behalf of the
e respondents was
that the
rejection of the applica
ants’ candidature,
wherever w
warranted on account of d
iscrepancies in the
particulars
s furnished in their online
e application forms
vis-à-vis t
the relevant supporting
documents, is in
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
20
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
accordance
e with the terms and cond
ditions of the Notice
of Examina
ation.
4.1 It wa
as contended that the par
rticulars furnished
by a cand
didate in the online app
plication form are
material fo
for the purposes of verifi
ication of identity,
educationa
al qualifications and eligib
bility, and that the
candidatur
re remains provisional u
until the requisite
particulars
s and supporting docu
uments are duly
verified.
4.2 Mere
participation in the exami
ination or securing
marks abo
ove the prescribed cut-off d
does not confer any
vested rig
ght upon a candidate t
to be selected or
appointed,
particularly where a dis
screpancy affecting
the corre
ectness or verification
of the declared
particulars
s is subsequently noticed.
4.3 Learn
ned counsel for the res
spondents further
submitted
that the Commission is re
equired to apply the
conditions
stipulated in the Notic
ce of Examination
uniformly
to all candidates in o
order to maintain
fairness,
transparency and the
sanctity of the
recruitmen
nt process.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
21
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
4.4 It wa
as argued that candidate
es are expected to
furnish co
orrect and complete pa
articulars in their
application
n forms and that an error
r cannot be treated
as merely
clerical or typographica
al in nature solely
because t
the candidate claims i
it to have been
inadverten
nt.
4.5 Accor
rding to the respondents, t
the materiality of a
discrepanc
cy must be assessed with
h reference to the
particular
information involved and
d its relevance to
identity ve
erification, registration re
cords, educational
qualificatio
ons or the prescribed eli
igibility conditions.
Where th
e discrepancy concerns
an essential or
material pa
articular, the respondents
contended that its
acceptance
e or correction after su
ubmission of the
application
n cannot be permitted
d in a manner
inconsisten
nt with the Notice of Exam
mination or so as to
confer an
impermissible relaxation u
upon an individual
candidate.
4.6 It wa
as further submitted that
the opportunity, if
any, prov
vided under the recrui
itment notice for
correction
of particulars must b
be availed of in
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
22
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
accordance
e with the prescribed pro
ocedure and within
the stipula
ated period.
4.7 A can
ndidate cannot, according t
to the respondents,
claim an
unrestricted right to
rectify material
discrepanc
cies at a subsequent s
stage, particularly
during or a
after Document Verificatio
on, when the terms
of the re
ecruitment process do
not permit such
correction.
. The respondents maint
tained their stand
that trea
ting materially incorrec
ct particulars as
inconseque
ential merely on the a
assertion that the
candidate
otherwise fulfils the eligib
bility criteria would
undermine
e uniform application of
f the recruitment
conditions
and may result in une
equal treatment of
similarly si
ituated candidates.
4.8 With
regard to the judgments
relied upon by the
applicants
, the learned counsel fo
r the respondents
contended
that the applicability of e
each decision must
be examin
ned in the light of the fa
acts of the case in
which it w
was rendered, the nature
of the discrepancy
involved an
nd the relevant conditions
of the recruitment
notice. It w
was submitted that a judgm
ment concerning an
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
23
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
inadverten
nt error which does not
affect substantive
eligibility c
cannot automatically be
applied to a case
involving a
an incorrect or inconsisten
nt declaration of a
material p
particular necessary for es
stablishing identity
or verifyin
ng eligibility. The respon
ndents accordingly
maintained
d their stand that the dec
cisions cited by the
applicants
do not dispense with
the obligation to
furnish co
rrect particulars or confer
r a general right to
have discr
repancies rectified after th
he prescribed stage
of the selec
ction process.
4.9 The
respondents thus con
ntended that the
impugned
decisions cannot be
characterized as
arbitrary,
disproportionate or hype
er-technical merely
because th
he applicants dispute the
materiality of the
discrepanc
cies noticed in their
respective cases.
According
to learned counsel, eac
ch candidature is
required t
to be assessed in acco
ordance with the
applicable
recruitment conditions
and the material
available o
on record, and where a dis
screpancy is found
to be mat
terial and inconsistent w
with the prescribed
requiremen
nts, rejection of candidatu
ure is justified. On
these grou
unds, the respondents o
opposed the relief
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
24
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
sought in
the respective Original
Applications and
prayed tha
at the same be dismissed.
4.10 Learn
ned counsel for the respo
ondents have also
placed reli
iance upon the judgment
dated 30.04.2026
passed by
y the Principal Bench of
f this Tribunal in
Shivayti C
Chaudhary v. Staff Selec
ction Commission
& Others ,
O.A. No. 641/2025. Rely
ying upon the said
decision, i
t was contended that the
correctness of the
particulars
s furnished by a candid
date in the online
application
n form is material to the re
ecruitment process
and that
a discrepancy affecting
the verification of
identity or
r eligibility cannot be tr
reated as a mere
clerical or
r typographical error in
every case. The
responden
ts submitted that the c
candidature of an
applicant
remains subject to ve
erification of the
particulars
s declared in the applicat
tion form and that
mere part
ticipation in the examin
nation or securing
marks abo
ove the prescribed cut-off
does not, by itself,
confer any
y right to selection or ap
ppointment. It was
further con
ntended that the condition
ns stipulated in the
Notice of
Examination are requir
red to be applied
uniformly
to all candidates and
that a material
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
25
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
discrepanc
cy cannot be permitted to
o be rectified at a
subsequen
nt stage in a manner
contrary to the
prescribed
recruitment procedure. O
On this basis, the
responden
ts sought to sustain the i
impugned rejection
of candida
ture in cases where, upon
examination of the
relevant fa
acts and documents, the di
iscrepancy is found
to affect a
a material particular or
the verification of
eligibility.
5. Heard
d learned counsel for the
respective parties
and peruse
ed the pleadings available o
on record.
6. ANAL
LYSIS :
6.1. The d
discrepancies or errors th
hat occurred in the
particulars
s furnished by the ap
pplicants in their
respective
online application forms a
are not in dispute.
The nature
e of such discrepancies, as
s emerging from the
pleadings
and the material place
ed on record, is
summarize
ed in the tabular chart belo
ow:
Sl.
No.
O.A.
(Year)
No. Brief Description of the
e Issue Involved
Mismatch in the period
online application form
to 28.02.2023, where
certificate reflects 01.06.2
d of experience: the
O.A.
1.
327/20
No.
26
mentions 15.12.2018
eas the experience
2018 to 26.12.2022.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
26
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
Mismatch in the period
online application form
to 21.12.2023, where
documents reflect 11.12.2
d of experience: the
O.A.
2.
343/20
No.
26
mentions 11.12.2016
eas the supporting
2016 to 21.12.2022.
The online application for
whereas the experience
“Vijay Bal Niketan Seni
Amarapura (Shahpura), J
rm mentions “School”,
e certificate mentions
O.A.
3.
468/20
No.
26
or Secondary School,
Jaipur”.
The applicant possessed
experience with Vaidik
01.04.2019 to 20.12.202
entered the end date a
online application form.
rejected at the Documen
account of this date discr
d the requisite driving
k Inter College from
22, but inadvertently
as 22.12.2022 in the
O.A.
4.
474/20
No.
26
The candidature was
t Verification stage on
repancy.
Mismatch in the period
online application form
to 11.12.2022, where
certificate reflects 04.10.2
d of experience: the
O.A.
5.
731/20
No.
26
mentions 04.09.2019
eas the experience
2019 to 11.12.2022.
Mismatch in the Class
online application form
whereas the original
0033069.
X roll number: the
m mentions 0033059,
O.A.
6.
741/20
No.
26
document reflects
Mismatch in the name of
online application form
whereas the experience
“Zenith Children’s Academ
f the organisation: the
m mentions “School”,
O.A.
7.
742/20
No.
26
e certificate mentions
my”.
Mismatch in the name of
online application form
whereas the experience
“Heritage High School”.
f the organisation: the
m mentions “School”,
O.A.
8.
743/20
No.
26
e certificate mentions
Mismatch in the name of
online application form m
whereas the experience
“Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari
f the organisation: the
mentions “Transport”,
e certificate mentions
O.A.
9.
744/20
No.
26
i Samiti”.
Mismatch in the name of
the period of experience:
form mentions “Schoo
25.07.2018 to 30.04.
experience certificate
Nityanand Uchch Madh
the period 25.08.2019 to
f the organisation and
the online application
ol” and the period
2022, whereas the
refers to Swamy
hyamik Vidyalaya and
O.A.
10.
No.
26
745/20
30.08.2022.
The applicant possesse
with S.S. Public Schoo
26.02.2020 to 28.02.202
employer. However, the e
inadvertently entered in
form as 01.05.2022 to 2
ed driving experience
ol, Shahzadpur, from
23, as certified by the
O.A.
11.
No.
026
1861/2
experience period was
the online application
28.02.2023, instead of
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
27
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
the actual period.
Discrepancy in the nam
mentioned in the online a
vis the experience cert
claims to have entered “
Shiksha Samiti”, while
requisite driving experien
me of the organisation
application form vis-à-
tificate; the applicant
“ECP” instead of “NCP
e asserting that the
nce was possessed.
O.A.
12.
No.
026
1976/2
The applicant relies
certificates said to estab
cumulative driving expe
prescribed minimum
candidature was rejected
of “Organisation and Dat
upon experience
blish continuous and
erience exceeding the
O.A.
13.
No.
026
2459/2
; however, the
d on the stated ground
e Mismatch”.
6.2 The
aforesaid tabular chart
reveals that the
discrepanc
cies in several cases pertain
n to the particulars
of the org
ganization or employer
mentioned in the
column re
elating to experience, wh
herein, instead of
furnishing
the complete name of th
e organization, the
applicants
have mentioned on
nly the generic
expression
ns “School”, “Transport” o
r “ organisation” “
date” othe
er incomplete particulars
. In certain other
cases, the
e discrepancies relate t
to the period of
experience
e, including variations in
the dates or years
mentioned
d in the online applicatio
on forms vis-à-vis
those reflec
cted in the experience cert
ificates.
6.3 We h
have examined the records
s of the respective
cases and
find that the applicants
s have relied upon
supporting
g documents containin
ng the relevant
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
28
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
particulars
s of their experience, inclu
uding the name of
the organi
ization and the period of
f employment. The
applicants
contend that these doc
cuments were also
uploaded
along with their r
respective online
application
n(s) and no new document
is relied upon. The
nature of
the discrepancies and th
he contents of the
supporting
g documents, therefore, req
quire consideration
in light of
the applicable eligibility c
conditions and the
relevant pr
rovisions of the recruitmen
nt notice.
6.4 In or
rder to determine whether
r the furnishing of
complete a
and accurate particulars in
n all the prescribed
fields of th
he online application form
m, in the manner
stipulated
under the recruitment no
otice, is mandatory
or merely
directory in nature, it wo
uld be appropriate
to examine
e the relevant clauses of
the advertisement
governing
the submission and
d verification of
application
ns.
6.5 Accor
rdingly, it is necessary to r
refer to the relevant
instruction
ns and conditions pr
rescribed in the
application
n form and the Notice of E
Examination, which
regulate th
he manner in which candi
idates are required
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
29
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
to furnis
sh the requisite parti
iculars and the
consequen
nces of any error, omissi
on or discrepancy
therein. T
The relevant provisions
are reproduced
hereinbelow
w for ready reference:
“9.3. Bef
fore applying for the post, the ca
andidates must ensure
that the
ey possess the Essential Qu
ualifications including
Experien
nce wherever it is prescribed as
Essential Qualification
and also
o meet the age-limit as on the c
crucial date mentioned
in Para 9
9.2 above.
9.5. For
r posts where experience in
n a particular field/
discipline
e for a specified period has
been indicated as an
Essentia
al Qualification, the applicants
must fill the relevant
column o
of the online Application Form
and also shall submit
self-attes
sted copy of relevant certificat
tes in support of their
claim of p
possession of Experience in tha
at field/ discipline from
the Comp
petent Authority along with the
e print out of the online
Applicati
ion Form, as and when called f
for by the Commission
after the
e conduct of Computer Based
d Examination failing
which th
eir candidature shall be rejected
d.
9.6. Sele
ection will be strictly as per Re
ecruitment Rules of the
post. It m
may be noted by the candidates
s that Equivalency will
not be al
llowed in case it is not mentione
ed in the prescribed EQ
for any c
category of post in the Notice. I
In case Equivalency is
allowed
in the Recruitment Rules, it is th
he responsibility of the
candidat
tes to submit the necessary Do
ocuments/ Certificates
(Order/ L
Letter with Number & Date) in s
support of equivalence,
issued b
by the Government of India/ St
tate Government or by
the Com
mpetent Authority, as mentione
ed in the post details
against
the particular category(ies) of
f post(s) in the notice,
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
30
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
from wh
hich he/she obtained the Edu
ucational Qualification,
failing w
which his/her application shall b
be rejected.
10.2. App
pplications must be submitted i
in online mode only at
the off
fficial website of SSC
Headquarters i.e.
https://s
ssc.nic.in. For detailed instruc
ctions, please refer to
Annexure
e-IV and Annexure-V of this Not
tice.
10.6. Ca
andidates should apply only on
nce for one category of
post.
10.7. A
After successful submission o
of online application,
candidat
tes must take a printout of th
he application form for
submittin
ng the same along with the requ
uisite documents, duly
self-attes
sted, as and when called for by
y the Commission after
the condu
uct of Computer Based Examina
ation.
10.8. Th
he information furnished by th
he candidates in their
applicatio
ons will be verified by the Com
mmission with reference
to the or
riginal documents during the D
Document Verification.
During v
verification of documents, if
it is found that any
informati
ion furnished by the candidate
e in the application is
wrong, h
his/ her candidature will be r
rejected forthwith. The
candidat
tes should ensure that they h
have furnished correct
informati
ion in the application form.
12. Wind
dow for Application Form Corr
rection [20.06.2022 till
24.06.20
022 (23:00 PM)]
12.1. Aft
ter the closing date for receipt
of online applications,
the Com
mmission will provide a period
d of 5 days to enable
candidat
tes to correct/ modify online ap
application parameters,
wherein
candidates will be allowed to
re-submit applications
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
31
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
after ma
aking requisite corrections/ ch
hanges in the onetime
registrati
ion/ online application data as p
per their requirement.
12.2. A c
candidate will be allowed to cor
rrect and re-submit his
modified/
/ corrected application two time
es during the ‘Window
for Appl
lication Form Correction’ i.e.
if he/she has made
mistake
in his updated application
also, he/she will be
allowed
to resubmit one more modified/
/ corrected application
after ma
aking requisite corrections/ m
modifications. No more
correction
ns in the application form will
be allowed under any
circumsta
ances.
12.3. O
nly those candidates will b
be allowed to make
correction
ns in the application form, wh
hose completed online
applicatio
ons along-with payment of req
quisite fee, have been
received
by the Commission within the s
specified period.
12.4. La
test modified application will b
be treated as the valid
one and
d the previous application(s)
submitted by such
candidat
tes will be ignored.
12.5. The
e Commission will levy a uniform
m correction charges of
₹ 200/-
for making correction and re
esubmitting modified/
and ₹ 500/- for making
corrected
d application for the first time a
correction
n and re-submitting modified/
/ corrected application
for the s
econd time. The correction char
rges will be applicable
to all can
ndidates irrespective of their gen
nder/ categories.
12.6. The
e correction charges can be pai
id only by online mode
through B
BHIM UPI, Net Banking or by u
using Visa, Mastercard,
Maestro,
RuPay Credit or Debit cards.
12.7. Th
e correction charges once paid
shall not be refunded
under an
ny circumstances nor will it be
adjusted against any
other exa
amination or selection.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
32
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
12.8. B
Before submission of the c
corrected application,
candidat
tes must check that they have f
filled correct details in
each field
d of the form. After expiry of ‘W
Window for Application
Form Co
rrection’, no change/ correction
n/ modification will be
allowed
under any circumstances. Req
quests received in this
regard in
n any form like Post, Fax, Ema
ail, by hand, etc. shall
not be en
ntertained by the Commission a
and will be summarily
rejected.
15.2. The
e Commission will not undertak
ke detailed scrutiny of
applicatio
ons for the eligibility and other
r aspects at the time of
Compute
er Based Examination and, ther
refore, candidature will
be accep
pted only provisionally. The can
ndidates are advised to
go throu
ugh the requirements of edu
ucational qualification,
experienc
ce, age, physical and medical
standards etc. as per
the requ
irements of the Post-category t
they wish to apply for
and sati
isfy themselves that they are e
eligible for the post(s).
Copies of
f self-attested supporting docum
ments along-with print
out of the
e online application form will be
e sought at the time of
Scrutiny
Stage from the shortlisted ca
andidates for the said
stage of
f scrutiny as per Selection Pr
rocedure mentioned in
Para-18
and at the time of Docume
ent Verification. When
scrutiny
of documents is undertaken
at any stage of the
recruitme
ent process, if any claim made
e in the application is
not foun
nd substantiated, the candidat
ture will be cancelled
and the C
Commission’s decision shall be f
final.
16. DOC
UMENTS VERIFICATION:
16.1 All
the candidates qualified for Doc
cument Verification are
required
to appear for Document Verifi
ication in the Regional
Office to
o which the Post-category bel
longs, along with the
photocop
pies and original documents as
mentioned at Para No.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
33
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
16.4. 18
8.19. The candidates applying
g for the examination
should e
ensure that they fulfill all the e
eligibility conditions for
admissio
on to the examination. Their adm
mission at all stages of
the exam
mination will be purely provis
sional, subject to their
satisfyin
ng the prescribed eligibility
y conditions. If, on
verificatio
on, at any time before or after
r the Computer Based
examina
tion, it is found that they do
not fulfill any of the
eligibility
y conditions, their candidature fo
for the examination will
be cance
elled.
20.1. AP
PPLICATIONS/ CANDIDATURE
OF APPLICANTS ARE
LIABLE T
TO BE CANCELLED/ REJECTE
ED AT ANY STAGE OF
THE REC
CRUITMENT PROCESS IN THE
E EVENT OF ALL OR
ANY OF T
THE FOLLOWING:
20.1.1. A
Applications being incomplete.
20.1.7. N
Non-forwarding of self attested l
legible copies of all the
relevant
certificates/ documents issue
ed by the competent
authority
y, along with the print out of
the online Application
Forms, i
in support of the information
given in their online
Applicati
ion Forms about their educ
cational qualifications,
experienc
ces, percentage of marks obtain
ned, proof of age, proof
of catego
ory [SC/ ST/ OBC/ EWS/ PwD/
/ ESM/ CGCE, etc], as
and whe
en called for by the Commis
ssion after conduct of
Compute
er Based Examination(s).
20.1.10.
Non-receipt/late receipt of the
e printout of the online
Applicati
ion Form along with selfattested
d copies of the relevant
documen
nts at the scrutiny stage.
20.1.16.
Any other irregularity.”
6.6 It ap
pears that, in view of th
he large volume of
application
ns received pursuant to
o the recruitment
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
34
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
process,
the respondents may
have resorted to
technologic
cal tools, including autom
mated systems, for
scrutiny a
and identification of dis
crepancies in the
particulars
s furnished by candidate
es. The increasing
reliance on
n such mechanisms may
be attributable to
the substa
antial number of candidat
tes participating in
recruitmen
nt processes, particularly i
in the backdrop of
large-scale
e recruitment drives a
and the limited
availability
y of government emplo
oyment. However,
irrespectiv
e of the mode adopted
for scrutiny, the
application
n of the prescribed recru
uitment conditions
must be c
considered in the context
of the nature and
materiality
y of the discrepancy involve
ed in each case.
6.7 We n
note that the responde
ents have placed
considerab
ble reliance on the st
tipulation in the
recruitmen
nt notice that incomplete
application forms
are liable t
to rejection, maintaining t
that the terms and
conditions
of the advertisement are
e binding upon all
candidates
s and cannot be d
disregarded. The
responden
ts’ approach to the instr
ructions governing
the comple
etion of the online applica
ation form appears
to be guid
ded by the principle of “er
rring on the side of
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
35
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
that is, adopting a str
rict and cautious
caution”—t
approach
to avoid any possibility
of error or non-
compliance
e. While the need for stric
ct adherence to the
prescribed
recruitment conditions ca
annot be disputed,
the questi
on that arises for consid
eration is whether
such an a
approach warrants rejecti
ion in every case,
irrespectiv
e of the nature and m
materiality of the
discrepanc
cy and its actual impact o
on the candidate’s
substantiv
ve eligibility.
6.8. In Ka
arnail Singh v. Election
Tribunal, Hissar ,
((1954) 10
0 E.L.R. 189), it was o
observed that the
nomination
n paper of Sher Singh ha
d been rejected on
the ground
d that Column 8 of the no
omination form had
not been d
duly filled in. The objection
was that the name
of the sub
b-division had not been
mentioned in the
relevant
column. However, the
evidence clearly
established
d that there was no diffic
culty in identifying
the candid
date and that the cand
idate himself had
pointed ou
ut to the Returning Officer
r the entry relating
to his nam
me in the electoral roll. The
e Hon’ble Supreme
Court held
d that the defect in que
estion was purely
technical
in nature and upheld t
the finding of the
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
36
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
Tribunal
that the nomination
paper had been
improperly
y rejected.
6.9. In Pra
atap Singh v. Shri Krishn
na Gupta , AIR 1956
SC 140, 14
41, the Hon’ble Supreme C
Court observed that
courts sho
ould not adopt a technic
cal approach while
dealing w
with election matters and
d that “it is the
substance
that must count an
nd it must take
precedence
e over mere form.”
However, while
appreciatin
ng the effect of these o
observations, it is
necessary
to bear in mind the issu
ues that arose for
considerat
ion in that case. The
e validity of the
nomination
n was challenged on the
e ground that the
candidate
had failed to mention h
his occupation, as
required u
nder Rule 9(1)(i). In examin
ning this issue, the
Hon’ble Su
upreme Court considered t
he effect of Section
23 of the
C.P. and Berar Municip
palities Act, 1922,
which prov
vided that no act done or
r proceeding taken
under the
said Act could be questio
oned on account of
any defect
or irregularity that did no
ot affect the merits
of the ca
ase. The limited questio
n, therefore, was
whether th
he omission in the nomina
ation form affected
the merits
of the case. The Hon’ble S
Supreme Court held
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
37
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
that the fa
ailure to mention the occup
pation could not, in
any manne
er, affect the merits of the c
case.
6.10. The
dictionary meaning of
the term “defect”
denotes a
“lack or absence of some
ething essential to
completene
ess” and also encompasse
es “a flaw, fault or
imperfectio
on”. However, whether the
e term includes an
omission m
must necessarily depend u
upon the context in
which it is
s used. In the facts of the
e present case, the
discrepanc
cies in question may, at be
st, be construed as
instances
of inaccurate information
n furnished in the
online ap
pplication forms. Wheth
her a particular
omission
or inaccuracy would co
onstitute a defect
warranting
g rejection of candidature m
must, therefore, be
determined
d in the light of the s
specific provisions
governing
the recruitment process a
and the nature and
effect of th
he discrepancy involved. It
t is in this context
that the
broader question ari
ises as to the
circumstan
nces in which an omiss
sion or inaccurate
entry may
y be treated as a defect s
sufficient to justify
rejection o
f candidature.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
38
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
6.11 In Ra
angilal Choudhury v. Dah
hu Sao and Others
SCR 401) , the Apex Court h
held as under:
(1962 (2) S
“In the circumstances, it must b
be held that the defect
was of an unsubstantial cha
aracter and would not
result in the rejection of the n
nomination paper. We
may in this connection refer
r to Karnail Singh v.
Election Tribunal, Hissar and
Others (1951 10E.L.R.
189.), where this Court, obser
rved that it was quite
clear, on the evidence, that the
ere was no difficulty in
identifying the candidate, an
nd that the candidate
himself pointed out to the retu
urning officer his own
name in the electoral rolls. Th
herefore, the defect in
columns 2 and 5 was, in the c
circumstances, held to
be a technical one and not of a
a substantial character.
The principle of that case, in o
our opinion, applies to
the present case also, for there
e is no doubt here that
the returning officer found no d
difficulty in identifying
the proposer as well as the
candidate and, as a
matter of fact, the evidence
is that the candidate
himself pointed out the place
e in the electoral rolls
where his name was entered.”
6.12. The
respondents have place
ed strong reliance
decision rendered in Sh
ivayti Chaudhary
upon the
(supra), c
contending that the co
orrectness of the
particulars
s furnished by a candid
date in the online
application
n form is material to the re
ecruitment process
and that
a discrepancy affecting
the verification of
identity or
r eligibility cannot, in ever
ry case, be treated
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
39
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
as a mere
clerical or typographical e
error. However, the
said decisi
ion is clearly distinguisha
able from the facts
and circum
mstances of the present
batch of cases. In
Shivayti C
Chaudhary (supra), the c
candidature of the
applicant f
for the posts of Youth Assi
istant Grade-I (Post
Code NR1
0522) and Grade-II (Post
t Code NR10622),
advertised
under Phase-X/2022, w
was rejected vide
Rejection L
List dated 13.11.2024 on t
the ground that the
requisite w
work experience had not b
been mentioned in
the online
application form at the pre
escribed stage. The
only excep
ption was in respect of the
candidate who had
indicated “
“Yes” in the relevant field
d but had failed to
furnish the
e requisite details of such
h experience. Thus,
the discrep
pancy in the said case pert
tained to the failure
to furnish
the prescribed details of w
work experience in
the online
application form itself.
6.13 In Civ
vil Appeal No. 1 of 2024
(arising out of SLP
2230 of 2023), Vashist N
Narayan Kumar v.
(C) No. 12
State of B
Bihar & Ors. , decided on
n 02.01.2024, the
Apex Cour
rt observed as under:
“19. In this case, the appellant
has participated in the
selection process and clea
ared all the stages
successfully. The error in the
e application is trivial
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
40
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
which did not play any part in
n the selection process.
The State was not justified in m
making a mountain out
of this molehill. Perhaps the r
rarefied atmosphere of
the cybercafe, got the better
of the appellant. He
omitted to notice the error and
even failed to avail the
corrective mechanism offered. I
In the instant case, we
cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to th
he ground realities that
existed. In the order dated 22
2.11.2021 in C.A. No.
6983 of 2021 [Prince Jaibir Sin
ngh vs. Union of India
& Ors.], this Court rightly o
observed that though
technology is a great enabler,
there is at the same
time, a digital divide.
20. In one of the cases cited
as a precedent in the
counter affidavit, before the
High Court, Pankaj
Paswan vs. State of Bihar An
nr., 2015 SCC On Line
Patna 8739, the State had t
taken a defence that
many candidates applied in mo
ore than one place and
hence there could be deliberate
e tweaking in the date
of birth to take advantage of th
he selection process in
more than one district or region
n. It is very important to
notice that there is no such ple
ea taken in the present
case. If any such device or tri
ick had been adopted,
the State would have easily d
detected the same and
p
placed the same before the Co
ourt. The fact that the
same has not been done show
ws that there was no
trick or device resorted to by
the appellant. It is a
trivial error which appears to b
be a genuine and bona
f
fide mistake. It will be unj
njust to penalise the
appellant for the same.
21. Learned counsel for the
State, in the written
submissions, stated that the
e instructions clearly
stipulated that if two or more
candidates obtain the
same marks in the Physical
Eligibility Test, their
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
41
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
relative rank in the final
merit list could be
determined on the basis of th
heir date of birth. The
implication in the submission is
s that the date of birth
is a significant aspect. On that
basis, he submits that
the cancellation ought to be up
pheld. We do not find
merit in the submission. The or
riginal date of birth, as
available is 18.12.1997,
in the educational
certificates. There is no disput
te that the appellant’s
date of birth was, in fact, 18.12
2.1997. In view of that,
we do not see the said clause
e in the instructions as
an impediment for the selection
n of the appellant.
22. Learned counsel for the S
State has also, in the
written submissions, cited the j
judgment of this Court
in Yogesh Kumar and Others v
vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi
and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 548
. The said judgment is
clearly distinguishable. There
the issue was about
allowing entry of ineligible pers
sons into the selection.
While the eligibility prescri
ibed was Teacher’s
Training Certificate from a re
ecognized institute or
intermediate or equivalent
from a recognized
Board/University with an el
lective subject in the
required language at the ma
atric level, candidates
with B.Ed. degree sought app
pointment as Assistant
Teacher. Negating their claim, t
this Court held that the
B.Ed. qualification cannot
be treated as a
qualification higher than the
e Teacher’s Training
Certificate, because the nat
ture of the training
imparted for grant of certific
cate and for grant of
degree was totally different.
In that context, this
Court held that deviating from
the rules and allowing
entry to ineligible persons woul
ld deprive many others
who could have competed for th
he post. Yogesh Kumar
(supra) has no application to th
he facts of the present
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
42
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
case. Equally distinguishable
are the judgments of
the Delhi High Court in Rohit K
Kumar and Another vs.
Union of India and Others, 2
2022 SCC OnLine Del
1219 and Pradeep Kumar vs
s. Union of India and
Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2
239.
23. In the case of Rohit
Kumar (supra), the
undisputed facts, as is clear
from para 10 of the
j
judgment, was that the can
ndidate was declared
unsuccessful on two counts, n
namely, that the OBC
certificate uploaded by the can
ndidate was not as per
the format as mentioned in th
he advertisement and
additionally on the ground tha
at the date of issuance
of the certificate was wrongly m
mentioned in the online
application.
24. In Pradeep Kumar (supr
ra), the identity proof
(Aadhaar Card) was not uploa
aded and instead the
self photograph of the candida
ate has been uploaded.
We find that the said
two judgments are
distinguishable on facts for
the reasons set out
above.
25. On the peculiar facts of this
s case, considering the
background in which the er
rror occurred, we are
inclined to set aside the can
ncellation. We are not
impressed with the finding of t
the Division Bench that
there was no prayer seekin
ng quashment of the
results declared over the we
eb. A reading of the
p
prayer clause in the writ petit
tion indicates that the
appellant did pray for a ma
andamus directing the
respondents to consider the ca
andidature treating his
date of birth as 18.12.1997 a
and also sought for a
direction for issuance of an app
pointment letter. A Writ
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
43
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
Court has the power to mou
uld the relief. Justice
r of technicalities.”
cannot be forsaken on the altar
6.14 The
question as to wheth
her the aforesaid
discrepanc
cies constitute misrepresen
ntation/malafide or
impersona
ation or malpractice for
r the purpose of
securing p
public employment becom
mes relevant at the
stage of p
physical verification of d
documents. Before
finalizing t
the appointment, the recr
ruiting authority is
required to
o verify the authenticity o
of the claims made
by each
candidate, particularly s
since any offer of
appointme
ent at that stage remains st
trictly provisional.
6.15 Since
e human perfection is an
ideal that is rarely
attainable,
, inadvertent mistakes are
bound to occur. A
candidate
ought not to be judged
d unduly harshly
merely bec
cause technological advanc
cements enable the
detection o
of every such error, provide
ed that the mistake
does not a
alter the prescribed eligibi
ility criteria or fall
within the
e realm of concealment
t, suppression of
material fa
acts, or false declaration,
particularly where
the candid
date acknowledges the erro
or and the same is
capable of
objective verification.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
44
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
7. CONC
CLUSION :
7.1. In vie
ew of the foregoing discu
ussion and having
regard to
the nature of the discrep
pancies involved in
the presen
nt batch of Original Appli
ications, we are of
the consi
idered view that the
matter warrants
reconsider
ration by the respondents i
in accordance with
the princip
ples discussed hereinabov
ve. Accordingly, the
impugned
decisions rejecting the c
candidature of the
applicants
, in the respective Origina
al Applications, are
set aside
e, subject to the dire
ections contained
hereinbelow
w.
7.2. The
respondents are direct
ted to undertake
verification
n of the relevant particu
ulars furnished by
each applic
cant, with particular refere
ence to the original
educationa
al certificates, driving
g licences, and
experience
e certificates relied upon b
by them. Wherever
necessary,
the documents shall b
be referred to the
concerned
issuing authority or
organisation for
verification
n of their genuineness and
d correctness. Upon
receipt of t
the verification report, the
e respondents shall
consider t
the candidature of the co
oncerned applicant
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
45
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
and, if the
applicant is found to fulfi
il all the prescribed
eligibility
conditions as on the cru
ucial date and no
other disq
qualification is attracted, p
proceed further in
accordance
e with the applicable recru
uitment rules.
7.3. It is
clarified that the benefi
t of the aforesaid
directions
shall be available only whe
ere the discrepancy
is found t
to be inadvertent and do
oes not affect the
applicant’s
s substantive eligibility
or involve any
material
misrepresentation, c
concealment, or
suppressio
on of facts. The responde
ents shall examine
the nature
e and effect of the discrep
pancy in each case
individuall
ly and shall not reject a can
ndidature solely on
account o
of a technical or cleric
cal error without
considerin
g the supporting documen
nts and the findings
of verificat
ion.
7.4. In th
e event that an applican
nt is found eligible
upon com
mpletion of the aforesaid
d verification, the
responden
ts shall take approp
priate steps for
considerat
ion of such applicant for a
appointment to the
post in qu
uestion, in accordance w
with the applicable
recruitmen
nt conditions. If no vacan
ncy is available at
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
46
O.A. No.327/2026 & batch
that stag
ge, the respondents sh
hall consider the
applicant’s
s case in accordance wit
th law and adjust
them again
nst future vacancies.
7.5. The e
entire exercise, as directe
ed above, shall be
completed
within a period of eight w
weeks from the date
of receipt
of a certified copy of
f this order. The
responden
ts shall communicate a re
easoned decision to
each conce
erned applicant.
7.6. The
applicants shall not be
e entitled to any
monetary
benefits for the period d
during which they
were not
appointed pursuant t
to the impugned
decisions.
7.7. The O
Original Applications are
disposed of in the
aforesaid t
terms. Pending Miscellaneo
ous Applications, if
any, shall
also stand disposed of. to c
costs
7.8.. Regis
stry is directed to place a co
opy of this order in
each case f
file of this batch.
(Anand S
S Khati)
er (A)
(Manish Garg)
Member (J)
Membe
/as/
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:43+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI