- (1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the Respondents.
(2.) WITH the consent of the parties this special appeal is finally decided at this stage. The Petitioner - Appellant is aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge dated 31.1.2011 in Writ Petition No. 5601 of 2011 by which he has dismissed the writ petition against the order rejecting Petitioner's application for selection to Special BTC Training Course, 2008 on the ground that in the counselling on 2.8.2010 her application form was found to be affixed with photograph, which were not duly attested. The prayer in the writ petition to permit her to correct it, and to be sent her for training was not accepted. Learned Single Judge distinguished the judgment in Kavita Rani v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2008 (4) ESC 2762 in which a wrong mention of percentage of marks of B. Ed. was found to be indeliberate clerical error and form was accepted. Learned Single Judge has found that the facts of the case in Kavita Rani were different and that there was a certificate of proof of marks obtained by the candidate.
(3.) IN the present case we find from the pleadings that the photographs of the Petitioner were affixed on the form. They were not duly attested. The Petitioner had appeared before the authorities conducting the counselling. There could be no difficulty in finding out that the photograph affixed were the same, as of the girl, appearing before them. The want of attestation of photograph in the form was an irregularity. It could not be treated to be a fatal error. There could be no cause for non -attestation of the photograph except for human error. When the Petitioner was present before the authorities conducting the counselling, her photograph could be verified from her appearance and she could have been permitted to correct the error by getting it attested. In her application dated 7.10.2010, the Petitioner pleaded that in counselling on 2.8.2010 she was required to remove defects in her application. She was called to appear again on 30.9.2010, vide letter dated 14.9.2010 but was not allowed to remove the formal defect.;