Pothu Sampath Kumar v. u nconstitutiona I and consequently direct the

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M/s. K.UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI ZAKIR ALI DANISH, SC FOR NPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER I wp-16279 '2019 N0l(r THE HON'B E SRI IU TICE N GESH B EEMA PAKA WRITP ETITIO N No.1 6279 of ot9 ) ORDER: In response to the Notification dated 24J52018 issued by the 1't respondent-Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd'' (NPDCL), the petitioner applied for the Sub-Engineer position on 08.06.2018 and appeared for the examination on 08-07-2018' and secured 83 marks. Howeveq, while filling the application form' he mistakenlymarked,.Yes,,tothecolumnpertainingtothecreamylayer ofBC-A,alt}roughhedoesnotfallunderthecreamylayer.Asaresultof this erro4 he was not called for certificate verification which was scheduled for 03.10.2018, despite scoring above the 79 marks cut-off for the BC-A fNon-Creamy Layer] cateSory' According to the notification, candidates must show proof of exclusion from the creamy layerduringcertificateverification,andthepetitionerisreadyto provide necessary proofthat he belongs to non-creamy layer under BC- A, but he was not called for certificate verification process. He filed writ Petition No.35646 of 20L8, challenging the respondents' action of not callinghimfortheverificationofhiscertificatesonorafter03-10-2018. This Court by orders dated 05-10-2018 passed interim orders in the writ petition, to the following effect: "By way of interim order, respondents are directed to consider the representationofpetitionerdated2T.og.20l8andpassappropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order" Thereafte4thepetitionervisitedtheofficeoftherespondent- NPDCL and submitted a copy of the interim orde[ howeve! he was / / LD 2 wp,16119 _2019 NEKJ informed that the certificate verification was postponed due to the Election Code of (londuct. Thereafte4 the certificate verification was held on 79-12-iL0:18, but the petitioner was not called for certificate verification. He r;ubmitted a representation on 15-12-2018, howeve4 as no action was forthcoming from the respondents in spite of the interim orders passed in the writ petition, he filed a Contempt Case, C.C.No.33B6 of 2078. Followinp, the contempt proceedings, the respondents issued an Order d,atecl 24.722018 (served on 01-05-2019J, the relevant portion of whichL reads as follows: "(iii) Hence, ttre information uploaded by you in application form online in the first instance in support of creamy layer of BC-A category in terms of G.O.Ms.No.8, Backward Classes Welfare QP Department clL 13.11.2O14 read with T.O.O. (CGM-HRD-Per) Ms.No.l88, dt.22.09.2014 will hold good. Your second thought exercise lirniting your connectivity to BC-A community by isolating the creamy la\/er criteria is a futile exercise for accountability to favour you. (iv) Since you ,:onfessed the total error on your part by opting 'yes' against column "whether comes under creamy layer", it cannot be set aside to please you against the notification guidelines. lt is pertinent to meintion in this regard that inter alia under Para lll note (2) and (3) thereof saying that the particulars furnished in the application {onm will be final and if the information any furnished by the candidate subsequently in any form will not be entertained by TSNPDCL." It is the ca ,e of the petitioner that the respondents have not sought any additic,nal information to assess his creamy layer status, such as details about his parents'civil service status or inconre; and had the respondents requested the relevant certificates, he vrould have submitted them to prove that he does not belong to the creamy layer. It 3 wp 16279 2019 NBK,I is his grievance that the respondents did not provide an edit option in the online application, as is common with other recruiting agencies like TSPSC, for rectifying inadvertent errors, lf anyr while filling out the application form; and the decision to treat him as an OC or creamy layer BC candidate without allowing corrections is arbitrary and illegal. According to the Notification, if the petitioner were to be treated as an oc or creamy layer BC candidate, the examination fee would have been Rs. 120/-. Howeve4 he was treated as a BC candidate and his application wasacceptedwithafeeofRs.l00/-asapplicableforBCcandidates.It is submitted that despite the error in the application, the respondents issued him a Hall Ticket mentioning his reservation category as BC-A, and he attended the written examination on 08-07-2018 and scored higher than the required cut-off marks and had become eligible for next stage i.e., certificate verification. It is his case that, had his caste certificate been verified, the respondents would have confirmed that he doesnotbelongtothecreamylayer.Therespondentshaveftl]led4L7 outofthetota|4gTpostsofSub-Engineer;andS0vacanciesremain unfilled. Petitioner therefore prays for a writ of Mandamus' declaring the order dated 24-12-2078 of the 2nd r'espondent as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr. N. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.K. Udayasri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No'1; and Mr' ZakirAli Danish, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No'2-NPDCL' Perused the record' 4 vlp 16279_2019 NB(,J Learned r:c,unsel forlhe petitioner contends that the petitioner

3. inadvertently categorized himself as belonging to the creamy layer of the BC-A categoqi and that this error was gendine and should not result in the denial of his rightto be considered under the BC-A ltlon-Creamy Layer categorli as per the notification. He contends that the respondents faile,l to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to correct the error in the online application form and there wzLs no editing option/mechanism to amend such errors. He further contends that despite the petitic,ner securing 83 marks, well above the cut-off of 79 for the BC-A (Non-Creamy Layer) category, the respondents failed to call the petitioner fcrr the certificate verification scheduled for 03-10-2018. Learned counsel contends that as the petitioner belongs to l\lon-Creamy layer in BC-A category he paid the examination fee of Rs.100/- and his application was ar:cepted. Learned counsel further contends that the respondents diri not request any relevant documents tc, veriff the creamy layer statu:; of the petitione4 such as caste or income certificates and had such documents been requested, the petitioner ',vould have promptly provid ed them, and the respondents would have verified that the petitioner does not belong to the creamy Iaye4, and non-providing of opportunity to produce the documents deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to prove that he belongs to BC-A (Non-creamy layerJ category. Learnec counsel submits that there was a total of 497 Sub- Engineervacancie:;, out ofwhich 417 have been filled, and 80 vacancies remain unfilled. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has got higher marks than the cut-off required for BC-A non-creanty category andatherefore lhe respondents may be directed to cc,nsider his candilature und,er the BC-A Non-Creamy Layer category by veri$zing ' 5 wp_16279_7079 NBK,I his caste status, for selection and appointment as Sub-Engineer. Learned counsel relies on the Common Order dated O4.O2.2022passed by this Court in W.P.No.3772 of 2019 and batch and submits that this Court in similar circumstances for selection of Junior Linemen posts, a candidate belonging to non-creamy layer of BC-E and erroneously declared as creamy layeq, directed the respondent authorities to consider the candidature ofthe petitioners therein upon production of non-creamy layer certificate. Learned counsel relies on Vashist Narayan Kumar v. The State of Biharl to contend that the Apex Court in the said judgment held that the error of the petitioner therein was not so grave as to constitute wrong or misleading information. He would further draw attention of the Court to the judgments referred by the Apex Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) i.e., Aiay Kumar Mishra v. Union of Indiaz, Anui Pratap Singh v. Union Public Service Commission3,

4. Learned.Standing Counsel, based on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, submits that the petitione4, in the online application form, categorically stated that he belongs to'the BC-A community and replied the "Creamy Layer" column as "Yes". As a result, his candidature was considered under the Open Category [OC], and he was not called for certificate verification, as he was not within the zone of vacancies under the BC-A (Non-Creamy LayerJ category. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the respondents acted in accordance with the information provided in the application, and thus, the petitioner cannot 1(2024) 1sCR 1 , (2016) 5CC OnLine Del 6563 3 2018 scgBnLine Del 10982 6 wp _16279 _7019 N8K,J now seek to mc,di[y the details submitted in his application florm. It is further contendr:rl that the terms and conditions of Notification No.2/2078, dated 24.05.2018, were mandatory and required strict adherence; and as per Para III, Note-2 and Note-3 ofthe Notification, the details furnished in the application form were final, and no subsequent representations c,r comections would be entertained. Learned Standing Counsel contentls that the petitioner consciously filled in the application form rnd indicated that he belongs to the Creamy Layeq, and therefore, he is not eligible to be considered for the BC-A I'lon-Creamy Layer category. t,earned Standing Counsel contends that since the petitioner himself indicated that he belongs to the Creanry Laye1, he excluded himself 1'rom being considered under the BC-A l'lon-Creamy Layer category as per the notification; and his representation dated

27.09.20L8, after l-he examination results, requesting to be considered under the BC-A category was therefore rightly rejec[ed by the respondents as her had self-declared himself under the Creamy Layer. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Hon'ble Supre:me Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. G. Hemalatha + held that the instructions in the recruitment process are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to, and the principle laid down in the said judgment applies to the present case, where the terms of NotificationNo.2/201,8 clearly stipulate that no modification.s 'will be allowed after submission of the application form; and thereliore the petitioner cannot now seek relief for correcting the details furnished in his application form after the proc€ss has been concluded. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the selection prqress for the post ofSub-Engineer (ElectricalJ as per Notlfication No. \ 4 (2020) 19 SCC 430 t 7 wP_76279-2019 NBK.J 2/2078 has been completed, and the selected candidates have already been issued appointments in December 2018, and the-petitioner was not called for certificate verification due to his status as an OC candidate, and thus, he has no right to be considered for appointment as his claim was not valid within the selection process. It is also contended that the petitioner failed to submit a valid BC-A Non-Creamy Layer certificate at the time of submitting his application. Learned counsel relying on Ramesh Chandra Sha v. Anil foshis Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is estopped from taking different stand now in the writ petition saying "No", after having said "Yes" in the online application. Learned counsel submits that the certificate was only obtained by the petitioner on 02.08. 2078,wellafter the application deadline of 18.06.2018, and as per the Notification, the details provided in the application were final, and no subsequent documents or representations could be considered. Learned Standing counsel submits that the petitioner's admission in the application form that he belongs to the Creamy Layer categorically excluded him from being considered under the BC-A Non-Creamy Layer category, and therefore the action of the respondents by relying on the information provided by the petitioner is justified, and there cannot be post-selection corrections permissible, as the petitioner himself acknowledged his Creamy Layer status and cannot now change his position to seek benefits under a different category. It is further contended that the notification specifically stated that no corrections or representations would be entertained after the submission of the application. This provision was strictly enforced, and the petitioner's application was 5 (2013) 11 scc ao9 8 v,tp_15219 2O\9 NBX,,I accepted based on the details provided therein. Learntld Standing Counsel further submits that acceptance of Rs.100/- as aplllication fee for BC categorJ/, and considering against vaCancies reselved for BC category are hv. different things, and the application lee has no relevance for thre reason that though different flee was prr:scribed for different castesr/categories, considering against reservetl vacancies depends on meeting the eligibility criteria for that category. Learned Standing Counsr:l submits that the petitioner cannot now cllallenge the process or seel: a modification of his application after the selection process has con,:luded. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the last meritorious candirlate in the OC category secured BB marks, while the petitioner secure,l B3 marks, and therefore the petitioner's r:andidature was rightly not r:onsidered for further selection process.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the is that the record, it may be noted that the specific case of the petition€rr column provided l.o indicate his status with regard to creamy layer is ambiguous as the lvord "under" could be interpretable as below and not within, and emplolring such word, having different connotal:ion, caused the confusion; and though he belonged to non-creamy laye4 erroneously indrrcated as belonging to creamy layer. It may b,: noted that the petitioner inclicated YES to the creamy layer colunrn, thereby implying that he helongs to creamy laye4 thus, not eligible ftrr vacancies against BC-A catep;ory. Howeveq, admittedly, the online portal did not permit correctic,ns to the data entered in the application form, thereby the error remainr:d. The petitioner represented to the respondent 9 wP _16279 _)O19 NBK,J authorities to consider his candidature by submitting Certificate dated

02.08.2078 whereby he is certified as belonging to non-er6amy layer. 6- At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar (1 supra), wherein the Apex Court had the occasion to deal with a similar issue of error committed by the petitioner therein in an online application form for the post of Constable notified by the Central Selection Board. The question that fell for decision, as framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is as follows: "10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the error committed in the application form, which was uploaded is a material, . error or a trivial error and was the State justified in declaring the appellant as having failed on account of the same?"

7. The Apex Court referred to Aiay Kumar Mishra (supra) wherein it was held at para 9 as follows: "9. lt is true that whenever any material discrcpancy is noticed in the application form and /or when any suppression and/ or mis- representation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed ahd the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, after a candadate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors." It was further held in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) AS follows:

14. We arc not impressed with the argument of the State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or mis-leading I ,] i 10 wp -16219 -2019 NBK,I information. We say on the peculiar facts and circumstances' of this case. Even th,: State has not chosen to resort to any crjminal action, clearly implying that even they did not consider this error as having fallen foul of t:he following clause in the advertisement:- "lnstructt,)ns to fill ontine application form are available on the website. 1,. is recommended to all the candidotes to carefully read the instructj(,r,s before ftling the online application form and kindly fill the op,Dropriate response in the following tobs. In case, thc' informutton given by the condidates found wrong or misleading, the applicotiLnt form will get reiected and necessary criminal actions wtl! also be tnken agoinst the candidate."

15. Recentlv this Bench in Divya vs. Union of lndia & Ors., 2023:INSC 1900 = 2023 ('13) Scale 730, while declining relief to candidates, who acquired eligibility after the date mentioned in the notification c;rrved out a narrow exception. There, the judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of lndia & Ors., [2016] SCC Onl.ine Del 6563, a case very similar to the facts ofthe present case, was noted. ln Ajai Kumar Mishra (supra), lndira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in para 9 sltated as under:- g. It is t,.ue that whenever any moterial discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/ or ttis- representdtion is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the opplicotion hos been processed and the candidate has been allowea' l't participate in the selection process. However, after a candidc,tt'has participated in the selection process and cleared all the sta{te\ successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, a,tter cdreful si.i'utiny of the gravity of the lapse, ond not for tri'/ial omission: or errors." (emphasis supplied) The excepltion for trivial errors or omissions is for the reason that law does not ,roncern itself with trifles. This principle is recognized in the legal m.axim - De minimis non curat lex, t 7L wp_76279 2079 N8K,J ln fact, in Anuj Pratap Singh (supra), as is clear from para 14 of the said judgment the candidate unable to correct the error at..the first point was forced to repeat it while submitting the application for sitting in the main exam since he had no othef option. The Court accepted the explanation and condoned the error in the filling up of the column pertaining to th€ date of birth.

18. The learned counsel for the State drew attention to the verification by the appellant, of the details in a printed form furnished by the selection board. He contended that the appellant signed the form which carried the date of birth. First of all, the form was a printed form which reflected the date of birth as given by the appellant and the appellant signed the printed form on 10.03.2018. We are inclined to accept the explanation of the appellant that since the appellant was unaware of his own mistake he had mechanically signed the printed form. lt is only later, on 11.06.2018, on the publication of the result that the appellant realized the error. We do not think that the appellant could be penalised for this insignificant error which made no difference to the ultimate result. Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression.

19. ln 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 ani, part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. Perhaps the rarefied atnosphere ofthe cybercafe, got the better of the appellant. He omitted to notice the error and even failed to avail the corrective mechanism offered.

8. It is pertinent to note that in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra), the petitioner made a similar error while filling out an online application form for recruitment to the post of Constable, and further he could not,avail the corrective mechanism provided. Howeve4, in the I I \j 72 wp _L6279 _2019 N8K,I -1 i. instant case, admittedly there is no corrective mechanism provided in the online applicltion portai to rectify any inadvertent err(lrs made by an applicant while filling out the application form, thereby the petitioner hereil is in a disadvantageous position than the one in Vashist Narayan lKumar (suPra). g. Upon constdering the judgments relied on, and also the arguments advanr:ed by the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the case in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In that view of the mattec :his Court is inclined to allovv the writ petition.

10. Accordingl.,l the writ petition is allowed, granting the relief as prayed for. No costs. The respondent-NPDCl shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, Misr:r:llaneous petitions pending, if any, sh4! st4Ud c-losed. That iRule Nisi has h,een made a bsolute as above. Witness THE HON'BL E: THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAI'IL' on this i-NiOAi, THC TWENT'Y FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY GISTRAR OFFICER To

1. The chairman and Managing Director, Northern P-ower DistribLrtion company ;i i"lr"g;;a l-td , Corpoiatd office, Warangal - 506002' z cnieiee"nerat vanagerlHnb), Northern eo-wer P^istrioution - i"trng"n, Ltd. {-;orp6rat'e OfflcgLrytrir.nSal - 506002 e o;e ct ta Snt ru LRTRnoHAN REDDY;A!yoc?!e [oPUC] n On" CC to M/s. l( UDAYA SRl, Advocate IOlUql- d o;; cc io Snt zAKtR ALI DANlsH, sc FoR NPDCL [oPUc] 6. Two CD CoPies company of PSK. BS s T:--i q HIGH COUR DATED:2110312025 ORDER WP.No.16279,cf 2019 ,t ZB l'iArl 2[6 a i DESPA' t ,c$ql) -;t- ALLOWING TFIE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS}TS ?, 0T^ @) b $