Misrepresentation of Disability Category in Application Leads to Candidature Cancellation.

The applicant, Prdeep Kumar, applied for a recruitment drive (Advertisement No. 01/2013) for posts with Grade Pay ₹1800.

He successfully cleared the written examination held on 02.11.2014.

Subsequently, he was called for document verification and medical examination.

During document verification, it was found that the applicant had inadvertently marked his disability category as "HH" (Hearing Handicapped) in the online application form, while his disability certificate indicated he belonged to the "OH" (Orthopedically Handicapped) category.

The recruitment notification stated that if the claimed category was incorrect at any selection stage, the candidature would be cancelled.

The applicant contended that the error was inadvertent and technical due to the advertisement being in English, and he belonged to a Hindi-speaking region.

The respondents cancelled his candidature according to the notification terms.

The panel for the said notification has already been exhausted, and no vacancy exists.

Whether the cancellation of the applicant's candidature due to a discrepancy in the disability category mentioned in the application form (HH) versus the disability certificate (OH) was justified, despite the applicant possessing a valid disability certificate for the OH category?

The Tribunal applied the principle that an employer has the right to cancel candidature if the information provided in the application form, particularly concerning reservation categories, is found to be incorrect, aligning with the terms and conditions outlined in the recruitment notification.

It distinguished cases involving minor, inadvertent errors or typographical mistakes in dates of birth (Anuj Pratap Singh v. Union Public Service Commission, Nitish Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, Poonam Pal D/o Laxman Singh Pal v. Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank) from cases involving misrepresentation or incorrect claims of reserved categories.

The Tribunal relied on Satish Kumar v. Union of India & ors, affirmed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 16729/2023, which held that a wrong declaration regarding a reservation status, even if supported by a different type of disability certificate, justifies the cancellation of candidature.

This also aligns with the broader principle established in cases like Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd and another v. Anil Kanwariya and Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttrakhand, where false information or suppression of material facts can lead to termination or refusal of employment, emphasizing that dishonesty should not bear fruit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant consciously applied under the "HH" (Hearing Handicapped) category, as admitted by him, even though the advertisement clearly defined categories.

His disability certificate, however, proved he belonged to the "OH" (Orthopedically Handicapped) category.

The respondents, following the clear terms of the recruitment notification, cancelled his candidature because the category claimed in his application did not match his submitted disability certificate.

The Tribunal distinguished the applicant's case from previous judgments cited by his counsel (Anuj Pratap Singh, Nitish Kumar, Poonam Pal) where discrepancies involved dates of birth and were considered minor or inadvertent.

Instead, it drew a direct parallel to Satish Kumar v. Union of India & ors and its affirmation by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, which explicitly upheld the cancellation of candidature where a candidate claimed one type of handicap (vision handicap) but submitted a certificate for another (hearing and locomotor handicap).

This precedent directly supported the respondents' action, as the misdeclaration concerned a material aspect of the application, impacting the specific category of reservation.

The argument that the error was due to the advertisement being in English was not accepted as a valid excuse for misrepresenting a specific disability category.

The Tribunal concluded that the cancellation of the applicant's candidature was justified because he applied under the "HH" category but produced a disability certificate for the "OH" category, a situation almost identical to the precedent set in Satish Kumar v. Union of India & ors, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.

No costs were awarded.