Bona fide disclosure of inadvertent application error requires administrative consideration before cancellation of candidature.

The petitioner applied for a post under the State of Madhya Pradesh. In his application, he inadvertently claimed possession of an NCC ‘C’ Certificate, which resulted in the award of an additional 4.04 marks.

Upon declaration of the results on 12.03.2025, the petitioner realized the error and submitted representations on 24.03.2025 and 14.07.2025, requesting the respondents to deduct the excess marks rather than cancel his candidature.

Despite these voluntary disclosures, the respondents issued an order on 31.10.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s selection on the grounds of furnishing incorrect information.

The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to amend his form within the prescribed window ending 15.07.2023.

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's selection without considering his prior voluntary representations regarding a bona fide mistake is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh consideration of his candidature after deducting the erroneously awarded marks.

Principles of administrative justice and the doctrine of proportionality under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Distinction between "deliberate misrepresentation" and an "inadvertent/bona fide mistake" in public employment applications.

The principle that administrative authorities must exercise "due consideration" of relevant facts—specifically voluntary disclosures made before the passing of an adverse order—to ensure that orders are "reasoned and speaking".

The court examined whether the petitioner’s conduct indicated a fraudulent intent to secure employment and observed that the petitioner sought rectification of the error immediately after the result was declared (12.03.2025), well before the respondents took any adverse action.

The court noted that the respondents' order dated 31.10.2025 was flawed because it proceeded as if the misinformation was a result of concealment, totally ignoring the petitioner’s existing representations dated 24.03.2025 and 14.07.2025.

The court reasoned that since the mistake was voluntarily brought to notice, the authorities should have evaluated the request for mark deduction rather than summarily cancelling the candidature.

Concluding that the impugned order was passed without application of mind to relevant materials, the court found it necessary for the competent authority to reconsider the matter.

The Authority was directed to decide the matter afresh "without getting influenced" by the previous cancellation order dated 31.10.2025; the petition was disposed of with these directions.