Inadvertent clerical error in application form does not justify cancellation of candidature.

The applicant, an Ex-Serviceman, applied for 520 posts of Constables in Chandigarh Police in November 2015.

His application form, filled by a cyber café helper, mistakenly listed his caste as SC instead of OBC, despite the uploaded Caste Certificate and Army Discharge Certificate correctly showing him as 'Ahir' (OBC).

After the provisional merit list was declared on December 31, 2018, reflecting him in the ESM (SC) list with 54 marks (higher than many in ESM (General) and ESM (OBC) categories), the applicant proactively informed the authorities and submitted a representation on January 3/4, 2019, clarifying the caste error.

He also submitted an affidavit regarding his caste on March 1, 2019.

Despite these disclosures and his superior merit, he was called for document scrutiny, medical examination (which he passed), and police verification (which was completed).

The respondents, however, cancelled his candidature, citing his incorrect declaration of SC caste in the application form and his failure to provide a valid SC certificate, as per their written statement.

The applicant's previous OA on this matter was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to refile.

Whether the applicant's candidature was rightly cancelled by the respondents due to an incorrect caste declaration in the application form, despite his subsequent clarification and the presence of correct caste information in uploaded documents?

Whether the applicant is eligible for appointment as Constable under the ESM (General) category on 'Own Merit' considering his scored marks, despite the initial error in caste declaration?

The Tribunal implicitly applied the principle that an inadvertent error in an application form, especially when proactively corrected by the applicant and where no concealment or undue benefit was intended, should not be a ground for outright rejection of candidature, particularly when the applicant otherwise qualifies on merit.

It also relied on the principle that reserved category candidates who score marks higher than general category candidates should be considered against general vacancies on their "own merit".

The court found that the mistake in filling the form (SC instead of OBC) was inadvertent, noting that the applicant himself proactively brought the issue to the authorities' notice before document verification.

The uploaded Caste Certificate and Army Discharge Certificate consistently indicated his correct OBC category, indicating no concealment or intention to gain undue benefit.

Furthermore, the applicant's high score of 54 marks placed him within the "Own Merit" category for ESM (General), making the caste category issue "inconsequential" for his selection, as he had higher marks than several selected candidates in that category.

The court observed that denying appointment to an otherwise qualified and eligible candidate due to such an inadvertent error would be unjust, especially given that he underwent medical examination and police verification even after the authorities were aware of the category discrepancy.

The respondents’ argument about the cancellation of candidature for not providing a valid SC certificate was deemed insufficient, given the applicant had clarified his caste as OBC and provided the supporting documentation.

The Tribunal concluded that the mistake in the application form was inadvertent, and there was no concealment of facts by the applicant.

The respondents' action in not passing and conveying any order on the applicant's representation and cancelling his candidature internally on the basis of the declaration, ignoring his proactive disclosure and his merit position, was quashed.

The respondents are directed to consider the applicant under the appropriate category and offer him an appointment letter within four weeks of receiving the order.