(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned final result passed by the second respondent dated 06.08.2025 declaring “Nil Nomination” and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Rehabilitation Counsellor (Post No.SR10724) within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.)

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the final result dated 06.08.2025, published by the second respondent, declaring “Nil Nomination” in respect of the post of Rehabilitation Counsellor (Post No.SR10724), quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Rehabilitation Counsellor pursuant to the application submitted by him vide registration No.10006708894 for the said post, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The first respondent herein issued an Advertisement No.Phase-XII/2024/Selection Posts, dated 26.02.2024, inviting applications for various posts, including the post of Rehabilitation Counsellor under unreserved category. In response to the said notification, the petitioner herein, having found himself fully eligible and qualified, applied to the said post under the Ex-Servicemen Category duly claiming age relaxation. Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the said recruitment process and he appeared for the computer based examination on 20.06.2024 and the results thereof were declared on 30.08.2024, wherein thirty candidates were found to be provisionally qualified and were shortlisted for further scrutiny. Thereafter, the shortlisted candidates were required to upload the self-attested soft copies of all the supporting certificates between 02.09.2024 and 24.09.2024. Upon scrutiny of the documents uploaded online, a tentative accepted list of candidates was published on 21.01.2025 shortlisting only two candidates, including the petitioner herein. Thereafter, a final list of accepted candidates was published on 25.03.2025 including the petitioner herein. It was thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a document verification call letter dated 01.04.2025 requiring him to appear for physical certificate verification in the office of the third respondent at New Delhi on 08.04.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for the certificate verification. During the certificate verification at the office of the third respondent, a discrepancy was noticed in respect of the period during which the petitioner gained the required experience as mentioned in the online application and the duration mentioned in the experience certificate physically produced by the petitioner at the time of certificate verification. It was thereafter, the respondents 1 & 2 published the final result notification declaring “Nil Nomination” for the post in question on their official website.

3. It is aggrieved by the said final result notification, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition contending that there was a minor discrepancy in mentioning the period during which he has acquired the requisite experience while submitting the application online due to an inadvertent mistake. It is further contended that the petitioner has actually gained the said experience from 08.07.2013 to 13.09.2015 as is evident from the certificate issued by the Station Commander, Air Force Station, Phalodi. But, while filling up the online application, the said period was mentioned as “from 06.01.2013 to 08.01.2015” inadvertently.

4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents 1 & 2 filed their counter-affidavit through their counsel.

5. Insofar as the third respondent is concerned, though Mr.S.Muthu Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, took notice for the third respondent, third respondent has not chosen to file any counter-affidavit.

6. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 1 & 2 states that the certificate verification of the selected candidates is the job of the third respondent and the third respondent, on verification of the certificates produced by the petitioner, noticed a discrepancy between the period of experience as uploaded by him while submitting online application and the period of experience mentioned in the certificate produced during certificate verification and because of the said reason, the third respondent has rejected the candidature of the petitioner. Thus, the respondents 1 & 2 contend that they have nothing to do with the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner and it is only because of the stand of the third respondent, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. The respondents 1 & 2 also placed reliance on Para 19.13 of the recruitment notification and stated that the User Department will verify the information furnished by the candidates in their applications with their original documents after completion of the computer based examinations and in case if any information furnished by the candidates in their application forms is found to be wrong, their candidature will be rejected forthwith. Thus, it is contended that in terms of the said Paragraph No.19.13 of the recruitment notification, the candidature of the petitioner is now rejected by the third respondent and the Staff Selection Committee has no role in the decision-making process relating to acceptance or rejection of the candidature of the candidates at the stage of document verification, which falls exclusively within the domain of the third respondent.

7. As already noted above, the third respondent has not chosen to file any counter-affidavit. However, the reason for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner has been spelled out by the respondents 1 & 2 in their counter-affidavit. The only reason for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner, while submitting his online application, referred to the duration of experience as “from 06.01.2013 to 08.01.2015”, but in the experience certificate produced by him during certificate verification, the duration of experience is mentioned as “from 08.07.2013 to 13.09.2015”. Thus it is evident that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the third respondent solely on the ground that the duration of experience mentioned by the petitioner while submitting his online application form is different from the duration of experience mentioned in the experience certificate produced by the petitioner during certificate verification. There is no dispute about the genuineness or otherwise of the experience certificates uploaded and produced by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has crossed all the stages in the recruitment process and it is only at the final stage i.e., certificate verification stage, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the only candidate, who has appeared for the physical certificate verification out of the two candidates, who reached to that stage. In the absence of any dispute about the eligibility and qualification of the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner has crossed all the stages in the recruitment process, the action of the third respondent in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner solely on the ground of discrepancy in the duration of the experience mentioned in the online application form and the experience certificate produced during certificate verification appears to be a hypertechnical, thereby frustrating the entire recruitment process that was carried out by the respondents from 26.02.2024 to 08.04.2025. As a result of the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on a trivial ground, the post of Rehabilitation Counsellor, which is sought to be filled in by the notification in question, has been frustrated. It would be a different case altogether, if the experience certificate produced by the petitioner is found to be not satisfying the requirements of the notification in question or in case if the same is found to be not genuine etc. But, that is not the case on hand. The mistake committed by the petitioner, while mentioning the duration of experience, is trivial in nature and the same does not in any manner impact the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Rehabilitation Counsellor, especially in the context of the fact that there is no other reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.

8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2024 INSC 2, in an identical fact situation, found that candidature shall not be rejected at the final stage basing upon the trivial in nature errors, which will have no impact on the eligibility of the candidates for filling up the post. In this connection, it would be relevant to extract Paragraph No.19 of the said decision hereunder:

                          “19. In this case, the appellant has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. Perhaps the 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. In the instant case, we cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed. In the order dated 22.11.2021 in C.A. No. 6983 of 2021 [Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.], this Court rightly observed that though technology is a great enabler, there is at the same time, a digital divide.”

9. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the third respondent is totally in error in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the said trivial ground and consequently, the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in publishing the final result as “Nil Nomination” for the post of Rehabilitation Counsellor (Post No.SR10724) is bound to be declared highly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the said action of the respondents is hereby declared as arbitrary and illegal. Consequently, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in the post of Rehabilitation Counsellor pursuant to the recruitment process undertaken by the respondents 1 & 2 under Advertisement No.Phase-XII/2024/Selection Posts, dated 26.02.2024, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.