IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13196 of 2009 RAJ KUMAR JHA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 5 28.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. On a hyper technicality, for a typographical mistake in the affidavit which had been filed along with the application form, the petitioner’s application stood rejected and he was not called for the interview. The mistake in the so-called affidavit is the word ‘Karayalay’ instead of ‘Nayayalya’. Petitioner had to make a declaration that he has not been convicted or no criminal case is pending against him in any court (Nayayalya) but in the format the word ‘ Karayalay’ got typed instead of ‘Nayayalya’. This omission on behalf of the petitioner is fatal for him because he has been ousted from the zone of consideration as the Company found his application not in the right format and therefore rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when he got the information of rejection of his application on 15.9.2009 he immediately filed another affidavit with the said correction but the respondents refused to accept it and the interview for selection was held sometime in the month of October, 2009 without him. Learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation relies on the general terms of the advertisement. Emphasis is on clause 19 (b) which states that ‘no addition/deletion/alternation - 2 - will be permitted in the application once it is submitted’. This was the reason why the additional affidavit could not be accepted by the Company or the petitioner could be given indulgence for making necessary correction in the said affidavit. The words addition/deletion/alteration will have to be understood in the proper context. It only seems that nothing substantive can be permitted to be added in the application which may alter the meaning or purpose of declaration which is furnished in the application. Whether it will cover a typographical mistake of another kind is the issue in this case. The Court has reservation in accepting the submission of learned counsel for the Company that a mere correction in the affidavit from the word ‘Karayal’ to ‘Nayayalya’ will amount to addition, deletion and alteration. The Company has taken a hyper technical view in the matter which has denied the citizen his right for consideration. If the petitioner on having been told of the said mistake carried out the necessary correction much before the interview was held then the Company ought to have allowed such a correction and should have allowed the petitioner to participate in the interview. The interview is already over with regard to other candidates. Only the petitioner’s candidature is to be considered. In view of the fact that no final decision has been taken and the result has not been declared, let the Company constitute a Selection Board and conduct the interview of the petitioner on the - 3 - merits of the matter before declaration of the final result with regard to selection in question. Before parting the Court would also like to record that the Company would be well advised not to create unnecessary litigation of the kind by taking such strict view specially of the kind which has become the subject matter of dispute in the present writ application. The advertisement issued by the Company is to select candidates depending on their merits and not to eliminate them on silly ground. This writ application is allowed RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)