C.W.P. No.13810 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.13810 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 30.9.2011 Avtar Singh PETITIONER VERSUS Union of India and another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri M.S.Uppal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri D.R.Sharma, Advocate for respondent-1. Shri Athar Ahmed, Advocate for respondent-2. MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing respondent No.1 to conduct the medical examination test of the petitioner and consider him for the final selection for the post of Constables. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had responded to the advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Constables in CISF, CRPF, BSF & SSB in the year 2011. The applications were to be filled in online. The petitioner considering himself to be qualified for it, applied for the same and was C.W.P. No.13810 of 2011 -2- called for the physical efficiency test and physical standard test which he cleared and he was subsequently called for written examination which was scheduled for 15.6.2011 and in this test also, he was declared qualified. As per the process, he was then invited to undergo medical examination test which was to be conducted on 22.7.2011 at 7 a.m. He appeared along with complete particulars and filled up the requisite form, but his candidature has now been rejected only on the ground that in the form submitted by him, instead of appending his signatures in the column which was meant for it, he wrote his name in capital letters. He thus contends that the action of the respondents in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner is arbitrary and unjust. Upon notice of motion having been issued, reply has been filed by the respondents. In the reply filed by respondent No.1, it has been stated in para-7 thereof that the petitioner had appeared for the detailed medical examination and on scrutiny of his dossier, his candidature was rejected for the reason that he did not adhere to the instructions contained in the advertisement and signed his name in capital letters which was totally contrary to the instructions specifically given out in the advertisement and also the Appendix to the advertisement. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 referred to the notice to the advertisement. Clause-2 of the said which has been placed on record as Annexure R-1, is extracted here below :- “2. In view of the anticipated large number of applicants, scrutiny of the eligibility and other aspects will not be undertaken before the PST/PET and written examination and, therefore, the candidature will be accepted only provisionally. Candidates are advised to go through the requirements of educational qualification, age, physical standards etc. and satisfy themselves that they are eligible for C.W.P. No.13810 of 2011 -3- the posts, before applying. Copies of supporting documents will be sought only from those candidates who qualify for the medical Examination. When scrutiny is undertaken after the Written Examination, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature will be cancelled and the Commission's decision in this regard shall be final.” Likewise, in the Appendix of this Notice, wherein instructions have been given for filling up applications, it has been mentioned in clauses 1.0, 3.0, 22 & 23 as follows :- “1.0 Please read the instructions given in the Notice of Examination carefully before filling up the application form, in your own interest. ... ... ... 3.0 Instructions have been given for most items in the application itself which should be gone through carefully before filling up the boxes. For items for which instructions are not available, further instructions given below may be gone through carefully. ... ... ... Column 22 & 23 Signature of Candidate (Wherever required) Please sign in running hand. Signature in capital letters of English shall not be accepted and your application shall be summarily rejected. Unsigned application shall also be rejected.” C.W.P. No.13810 of 2011 -4- It has thus, been contended that it is because of the fault of the petitioner that such a situation has arisen and the respondents have no malice towards him so as to reject his candidature. It has next been contended that in the absence of any malice, in view of the specific instructions, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the assertions made by the petitioner, as also the counter assertions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is indeed an unfortunate case where the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that he had mentioned his name in capital letters instead of appending his signatures against the column which warranted such an information. The petition does not level any allegation of unfair selection and in view of this, the action of the respondents be construed to be in conformity with the rules and instructions stipulated in the advertisement. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that in a public appointment, the response to such an advertisement is often overwhelming and a number of people who respond, is always far in excess of the advertised posts which in turn would lead to a cumbersome selection process. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is not an isolated case of facing such a situation, but there are other people also whose candidature has been cancelled on the ground that their forms were not in conformity with the instructions. In view of this, accepting the plea of the petitioner would be inviting a catasphoric situation where the entire selection process of the persons who have participated, would be put to a risk. There is no legal infirmity pointed out in the action of the respondents and even though the demands of equity could have prevailed upon the Court, but noticing the fact that it would result in opening a pandora's-box which may jeopardize the entire selection process, I am of the opinion that no C.W.P. No.13810 of 2011 -5- interference is warranted. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) September 30, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO