Cancellation of candidature for trivial errors not affecting eligibility or conferring undue advantage is arbitrary.

The Petitioner, an ex-serviceman who served in the Indian Army, applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and other agencies pursuant to a 2021 recruitment notice

The Petitioner is a permanent resident of District Morena, Madhya Pradesh, and holds a valid domicile certificate from that district

Having successfully cleared the Computer Based Examination, Physical Tests, and Detailed Medical Examination, his candidature was cancelled on 06.10.2022 during document verification

The cancellation was based on a discrepancy in his online application form: while his permanent address was correctly listed as Morena, he inadvertently selected "Gwalior" as his domicile district in certain columns

Whether an inadvertent error in an online application regarding the district of domicile, which neither affects eligibility nor confers an undue advantage, justifies the cancellation of candidature after a candidate has cleared all selection stages

The Court applied the principle of proportionality and fairness in administrative action under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It relied on the precedent set in Arkshit Kapoor v. Union of India and Ors. (W.P.(C) 3721/2017), which established that the cancellation of candidature for typographical or inadvertent errors that are inconsequential to eligibility is arbitrary and disproportionate

The Court further held that procedural stipulations in recruitment notices intended to prevent manipulation should not be applied mechanically to penalize bona fide mistakes

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s error was purely clerical, as both Morena and Gwalior are within the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Petitioner derived no reservation benefit or undue advantage from the mistake

Since all other documentary records, including the Domicile Certificate, correctly identified his residence as Morena, the discrepancy did not alter his eligibility zone or zone of consideration

The Court reasoned that the purpose of recruitment is to select meritorious candidates and that the Respondents' rigid application of the non-amendment clause was "mechanical," failing to consider that the error had no bearing on the integrity of the selection process

Furthermore, the Court rejected the Respondents' argument that vacancies were already filled, noting that the state's unsustainable and arbitrary action cannot preclude the granting of relief to a successful candidate

The Court directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for appointment against the next available vacancy or batch, subject to other eligibility criteria

However, the Court clarified that the Petitioner is not entitled to back wages or seniority for the period of the delay

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly