- (1.) AT the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and this intra Court appeal is being disposed off finally.
(2.) APPELLANT has preferred this intra Court appeal challenging impugned order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Single Bench, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12391/2010 filed by the writ petitioner/respondent, Savita, has been allowed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an Advertisement No. 3/2010 was issued by the appellant, which was published on 29.05.2010, inviting applications for the posts of Junior Scientific Officer, Junior Environment Engineer and LDC cum Data Entry Clerk. The facility of submitting application form through on-line was provided. The last date for submitting the applications through on-line was 15.06.2010 and signed copy, i.e. hard copy was to be submitted before 20.06.2010. The writ-petitioner initially filled the online form in respect of post of Junior Scientific Officer in place of post of Junior Environment Engineer. When she came to know about the error committed by her, then she approached the respondent to correct the name of post from Junior Scientific Officer to Junior Environment Engineer, but her request was declined. Thereafter, she approached the Single Bench by way of filing writ petition on 08.09.2010. The Single Bench vide interim order dated 09.09.2010 directed the respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in the written examination for the post of Junior Environment Engineer scheduled to be held on 12.09.2010. The writ-petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination. Thereafter, an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India was filed by the appellant for vacation of ex-parte interim stay order, which was dismissed by the Single Bench on 20.11.2010. The petitioner qualified for interview, therefore, on her application, an interim order was passed by the Single Bench on 20.11.2010 to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview provisionally for the post of Junior Environment Engineer against OBC quota, which was held on 23.11.2010. The writ-petitioner was interviewed and her final result, which was kept in sealed cover, was produced before the Court, which was seen, again sealed and returned to appellant. Learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions of the parties, came to a conclusion that due to human error, a mistake was committed by the petitioner by mentioning the post of Junior Scientific Officer in place of Junior Environment Engineer, as she is not even eligible for the post of Junior Scientific Officer. One post of Junior Environment Engineer was also kept reserved for the writ-petitioner. The Single Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to declare final result of the petitioner for the post of Junior Environment Engineer and to consider her name for the appointment, in case her name finds place in the order of merit in accordance with law. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid direction of the Single Bench, the appellant has preferred this intra Court appeal. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that last date for filing the form through on-line was 15.06.2010 and hard copy was required to be submitted before 20.06.2010. Since, the petitioner filled her form for the post of Junior Scientific Officer and she was not eligible for the said post, therefore, her application form was rejected. Subsequently, she filed an application to allow her to change the name of post, but since her application was not in time, therefore, it was also rejected. He further submitted that the Single Bench has wrongly held that it was a human error. He also submitted that learned Single Judge himself in Bhag Chand Verma Vs. RPSC and Others(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15289/2010) decided on 10.05.2011 took a view that such change in the application form cannot be allowed after expiry of last date for submission of form. He also relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 571/2004 decided on 13.04.2010 and judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. M.V.V.S. Murthy, 1987(Supp) SCC 371. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order passed by the Single Bench and submitted that so far as post of Junior Scientific Officer is concerned, the petitioner was not eligible, therefore, she could not have filled her form for the said post. It was only because of a human error that she clicked on the button relating to Junior Scientific Officer. He also submitted that in similar circumstances, the appellant allowed number of persons/candidates to correct mistakes committed by them in their hard copies of application form. He also submitted that one of the example, which finds place in the order passed by the single Bench, is of Neha Vyas. In support of his submissions, he referred judgments delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2011 AIR SCW 4807 and Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, 2011(2) SCT 610. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and other documents available on record.
(3.) DURING the pendency of this intra Court appeal, the appellant filed Additional Affidavit explaining the case of Neha Vyas. It has also been averred in the Additional Affidavit that some applications were also received on 22.06.2010 and onward, but those were not at all entertained and were entered separately in the Receipt Register. Respondent, Savita has also filed an Additional Affidavit on 16.12.2011 stating therein that application form of one candidate, namely Dharini Jain, who submitted hard copy of on line application form and she has written her percentage of marks obtained by her in her own handwriting in the application form and receipt has been given to the candidate on 27.06.2010. She was granted relaxation by the appellant on her application, which was received on 07.09.2010. Respondent Savita has also mentioned some other facts on the basis of information received by her under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 to the effect that number of other applicants were allowed to change their qualification, date of birth and other information, after due date, i.e. 20.06.2010 by appellant. The appellant has further filed Counter Affidavit dated 21.02.2012 explaining the averments made by respondent, Savita in her Additional Affidavit. The appellant has mentioned that the applications of other persons were received in time, but they were entered subsequently. ;