Delhi HC Sets Aside Indian Coast Guard's Rejection Of Candidature

The Delhi High Court, on September 14, upheld the Petitioner’s claim by overturning the Indian Coast Guard’s (Respondent) decision declaring the Petitioner as failed in Stage-II of the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Navik (General Duty).

In the instant case, the Petitioner applied for the post of Navik (General Duty) in Scheduled Caste (SC) category pursuant to a recruitment advertisement issued by the Ministry of Defence in September 2022 which invited applications for recruitment to the posts of Navik (General Duty), Navik (Domestic Branch) and Yantrik.    

As the Petitioner was found eligible for the post of Navik (General Duty) as per the eligibility criteria in the recruitment advertisement, his application was accepted by the Respondent pursuant to which the Petitioner was issued his Stage-I Admit Card for the written examination. Thereafter, the Petitioner qualified the Stage-I written examination and passed in the Physical Fitness Test of Stage-II as well. 

However, in the document verification stage of Stage-II, the Respondent declared the Petitioner as failed on the ground of not being a bonafide candidate due to mismatch of information in his application form and his caste certificate. The mismatch prevailed in the name of the Petitioner and his father, i.e., the Petitioner’s name in his application form was ‘Ahire Ajinkya Shankar’ as against ‘Ahire Ajinkya’ in his caste certificate; and his father’s name in the application form was ‘Shankar’ as against ‘Shankar Ahire’ in his caste certificate.   

The Petitioner claimed that, as per the eligibility conditions in the recruitment advertisement, he was eligible for the post of Navik (General Duty) and further clarified that the aforesaid mismatch was a minor and inadvertent error on part of the caste certificate issuing authority, the Office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sillod, Maharashtra. In support of his contentions, the Petitioner produced several documents such as an affidavit clarifying his name and his father’s name; and representations made to the Respondent along with supporting documents, however, to no avail from the Respondent. 

Further, the Petitioner produced the correction letter and corrected caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sillod, Maharashtra along with a certificate of validity issued by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, all of which acknowledged the error on part of the caste certificate issuing authority and confirmed the name of the Petitioner and his father to be ‘Ahire Ajinkya Shankar son of Shankar’.

Being aggrieved by the inaction on part of the Respondent and, subsequently, the arbitrary decision of the Respondent in rejecting the Petitioner’s candidature, the Petitioner was constrained to approach the Delhi High Court by way of a Writ Petition. 

The Delhi High Court, taking into consideration the certificate of validity that confirmed the validity of the Petitioner’s caste certificate, observed that the purpose of document verification is to ensure that there is no impersonation, misleading or incorrect documents furnished to seek recruitment and that mere inadvertent mentioning or non-mentioning of surname in caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority would not mean and indicate that it is a case of impersonation or furnishing of false information. Therefore, it was held that the mismatch in the instant case cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be labelled as a discrepancy or as false information.

Therefore, in light of its aforesaid observations, the Delhi High Court quashed the decision of the Respondents in rejecting the Petitioner’s candidature. 

Thereafter, the Court referred to its judgments titled Pankaj v. Union of India, WP(C) 7207/2023 and Amandeep v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3902 wherein similar circumstances prevailed and the petitioners therein were allowed to be inducted in the next batch subject to completion of all formalities along with their seniority being considered at par with their batchmates and all consequential benefits except salary. Similarly, the Delhi High Court, in the interest of justice, directed the Respondent to induct the Petitioner in the next batch while having seniority at par with his batchmates and all consequential benefits except salary for the said period. Accordingly, the present petition was allowed. 

The Petitioner was represented by Abhinay Sharma, Partner, ASL Partners, Deeksha Prakash, Pooran Chand Roy, Associates, ASL Partners.