Sahil Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for a direction to the respondents to add the marks for the “NCC-A Certificate” of the petitioner and issue a fresh score card of the petitioner, and if found to make the merit list, appoint the petitioner to the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF's), SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examinations-2022.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner was filling up his application form for the above post, there was some issue of the server of the respondents due to which he was unable to upload his “NCC-A Certificate” issued by the Directorate of National Cadet Corps (in short, „NCC‟) on 01.03.2017. The said discrepancy was noticed by the petitioner only when he received the score card for the examination on 08.05.2023. The petitioner, thereafter, immediately opposed the same by a representation dated 08.07.2023, however, no relief was granted to the petitioner in this regard.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that it was only due to a problem with the server of the respondents that the petitioner could not upload the above certificate. She submits that the petitioner has a “NCC-A Certificate” much prior to the date of the issuance of Recruitment Notice and that therefore, there could be no doubt regarding the authenticity of the same. She submits that there would be no reason for the petitioner not to upload the “NCC-A Certificate” in terms of the Recruitment Notice, as the petitioner would have become eligible for 3.[2] additional marks because of the same.

4. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 2, she further submits that in such matters, minor discrepancies in the application form should not be allowed to prejudice the petitioner in the process of appointment.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the application form, the petitioner had clearly mentioned “NO” against Column No.16.1, which called upon the candidate to disclose if the candidate was a “National Cadet Corps (“NCC”) Certificate holder”. Having answered in the negative, there was no occasion for the petitioner to upload the “NCC-A Certificate”. He further submits that the Recruitment Notice in Clause 7.5.1, clearly warned the candidates that the benefit of incentive/bonus mark would be provided only to candidates who had opted for incentive/bonus mark for the “NCC-A Certificate” in the online application and confined to the production of the original certificate supporting the candidates claim at the time of verification. He submits that therefore, the petitioner, not having claimed the incentive/bonus mark in his online application, was rightly not granted the same. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan & Anr., (2021) 17 SCC 141, he submits that in a similar case, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of a candidate and held that bonus marks should not be granted to a candidate who has not opted for the same in the application form.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

7. In the present case, it is not denied by the petitioner that the petitioner did not claim the bonus marks as provided in the Recruitment Notice for the candidates having a “NCC-A Certificate”. In fact, the respondents have produced before us the Application Form submitted by the petitioner, which clearly, in answer to Clause 16.1, states that the petitioner does not hold a “NCC-A Certificate”. Clause 7.5.[1] of the Recruitment Notice clearly stipulates that the benefit of the incentive/bonus mark will be provided only to the candidate who had opted for the same in the online application. We reproduce the same as under:

8. The petitioner having not opted for the same, cannot now be granted the said benefit.

9. The Supreme Court in Madhu Kant Ranja (supra), considering a similar plea of the respondents therein (candidates), rejected the same by observing as under:

10. In Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court was considering a case wherein a candidate had gone to a cyber café to fill his online Form and by mistake mentioned his date of birth as 08.12.1997 as against his date of birth recorded in the Educational Certificate as 18.1.1997. The Court found that this was trivial error/omission for which the petitioner therein could not be denied the opportunity of recruitment. The said judgment therefore, cannot come to the aid of the petitioner as the petitioner had clearly answered in the negative in answer to Column No. 16.[1] of the Application Form.

11. For the above reason, the plea of the petitioner that there was some technical glitch in the server of the respondents also cannot be accepted. Once the petitioner had answered Column No. 16.[1] in the negative, there would have been no occasion for the petitioner to even attempt to upload his Form.

12. We have also been informed that the recruitment process is already over.

13. We, therefore, do not find any merits in the present petition.