IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.19680 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 13, 2010 NAVEPREET SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATIALA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions viz. CWP 19680 of 2010 (Navepreet Singh v. Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala and another) and CWP 20130 of 2010 (Rakesh Kumar Popli v. Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala and another), as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. For reference to record, CWP 19680 of 2010 (Navepreet Singh v. Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala and another) is being taken Civil Writ Petition No.19680 of 2010 2 up. 3. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to take preliminary examination of Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2009, scheduled to be held on 19.12.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner applied for Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) by way of filing an application. The name of the petitioner has been shown in the list of ineligible candidates. Subsequently, a Public Notice was issued by the respondents in newspapers and on the official website of Punjab Public Service Commission. The petitioner filed a representation which, however, has been rejected by the respondents, hence this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in column No.13 of the application form, by error '91' has been written whereas '71' was required to be written. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that because representations were invited, this minor clerical error should have been allowed to be corrected and Roll Number issued to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that in response to the public notice, 438 representations were received. On consideration of individual representations, in the context of errors in filling the Forms, 247 representations have been accepted and roll numbers have been issued. The said acceptance of representations includes 12 cases that have been dealt with separately by this Court today. Civil Writ Petition No.19680 of 2010 3 7. It has further been argued that in cases where basic information required to process a case was given, a pragmatic view has been taken and the Application Forms have been accepted. For example, where-ever some information was required to be given in two places i.e. by way of filling the code in numerical as also requiring the darkening of bubbles, however, bubbles have not been darkened, representations have been accepted. This is so because the basic information has been provided by the candidates while filling the Forms and the respondents could decipher the information and consider, and process the cases of such candidates. In certain cases, however, where information has not been given in relation to a column, Application Forms have been rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that in column No.13, category code was required to be filled in viz. whether the candidate belongs to General Category, Ex-servicemen Category, Sports Person of Punjab, etc. Code '91' relates to age relaxation permissible to Punjab Government employees. The application form, therefore, depicted a picture which could not have been considered by the Punjab Public Service Commission so as to allow the petitioner to take the examination as an eligible person. The code filled by the petitioner depicted a fact totally out of context of the relevant column. 9. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. In regard to age relaxation, column Nos.8 and 9 have been provided in the application form. While under column No.8, the candidate is required to state whether he/she claims age relaxation or not, Civil Writ Petition No.19680 of 2010 4 in column No.9, the category of age relaxation was to be reflected. Different relaxations in age have been given for different categories of persons; namely, Government servants of Punjab, Scheduled Castes of Punjab, Widows and certain other categories of Backward Classes, etc. 11. So far as the Brochure is concerned, at page 74, the earlier part indicates 'category code' list in block letters whereafter various categories have been detailed. On the same page, 'age relaxation code' list has been written in block letters indicating various categories in which age relaxation was permissible and could be claimed. Clearly, the petitioner had not given any relevant information in relation to column No.13, either in numerical or by way of filling the bubble. 12. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents have exercised their authority reasonably and no fault or infirmity therein can be traced. Considering code '91' in column No.13, the respondents could not have entertained the form at all and, therefore, it cannot be termed as a minor error. The information given by the petitioner in column No.13 of the Application Form is out of context. Without relevant information in response to the query in the column, the Application Form could not have been entertained. The respondents have allowed corrections in Application Forms in which relevant information was given, however, there were errors by not filling the bubbles etc. The respondents have considered the case of the petitioner, however, rejected the representation for legally tenable reasons that call for no interference. The petitioner, applying for a responsible post in Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch), is required to show a certain level of awareness in Civil Writ Petition No.19680 of 2010 5 filling of Application Form. Wrong filling of the code shows lack of knowledge on the part of the petitioner, particularly when a detailed Brochure had been issued along with the Application Form to guide the candidates to fill in the Form. 13. In view of the above, I find no ground in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to judicially review the action of the respondents. 14. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. December 13, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?