- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. In response to the advertisement issued by U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) inviting applications for Combined State/upper Subordinate Ser vices Examination, 1996, the petitioner sub mitted his application in time. He appeared in preliminary examination and was declared successful entitling him to appear in main examination. By a letter dated 11 -4-1997 Commission informed the petitioner that his application has been rejected on the ground that he has not disclosed the option al subjects in the application form.
(2.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 24-4-97 while enter taining this petition, this Court passed the following interim orders: "smt. Sadhana Upadhyay and Sri Sam Saran Sharma learned counsel appeared for the petitioner. Sri R. O. Saxena, holding brief of Sri V. M. Sahai, appears for the U. P. Public Service Commission. They are heard on the question of admission and stay. It is submitted for petitioner that his ap plication has been rejected vide order dated 11-4-1997 (Annexure-1) on the ground that the option al subjects have not been disclosed in the applica tion form. It is further submitted that though the date of order is shown 11-4-1997 yet it was infact despatched by the Commission on 18-4-1997. and as such no time was left for the petitioner to rectify the mistake. Had it been pointed out earlier, the mistake could have been rectified. Thus, the case appears to be arguable. Learned counsel for the Commission prays for and is granted 3 weeks time to file counter-af fidavit. Meanwhile, petitioner shall be permitted to appear provisionally in the U. P. P. C. S. (Main) Examination, 1996 but his result shall not be declared until further orders of this Court. This petition be connected with writ petition No. 14003 of 1997, Harikesh Bahadur Singh v. U. P. Public Service Commission and others. Copy of this order be given by today. " Dated: 24-4-97 Sd/-B. M. Lal, J. Sd/-Bhagwan Din, J. Pursuant to the said interim order, the petitioner has appeared in the main examination but his result has not been declared so far. Sri VM. Sahai learned counsel for the Commission has filed counter-affidavit which shall be placed on record. Mrs. Sadhana Upadhya learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not want to file any rejoinder-affidavit. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the letter dated 11-4-97, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the petition and the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, it is apparent that the only ground for rejection of the petitioner's ap plication is the non-disclosure of the op tional subjects in the application form. It is essential that the application form which a candidate submits before the Commission must contain necessary particulars disclos ing relevant information required by the Commission. If the application is incom plete, it is open to the Commission to reject it. Although the Commission has the power to reject incomplete application but it is not bound to do so. The act of the Commission must be fair and reasonable. Therefore, as far as possible, it is duty of the Commission to give an opportunity to the applicant to supply necessary information/particulars so as to rectify the mistake in the application form. In M. S. R. T. Corporation v. B. G. R. M. Service Warora, AIR 1970 SC 1926. Supreme Court while dealing with the case relating to the application for permit under Motor Vehicles Act held:- ". . . . . It is needless to state that an applicant must furnish full and complete information that is within his knowledge or possession, in his applica tion for the grant of a permit. The scheme of the Act is quite clear, viz. that an applicant must have a proper permit for operating transport services. To obtain that permit, certain formalities and proce dure have to be gone through. ";