The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking height relaxation for the post of Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police, ruling that errors in online application forms regarding fundamental eligibility criteria cannot be corrected at a later stage. The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), emphasizing that candidates are duty-bound to fill application forms with due care.
The High Court adjudicated on whether a candidate is entitled to the correction of clerical errors in an online application form regarding eligibility for relaxation in physical standards at a stage subsequent to qualifying the written examination and Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PEMT). The Court held that post-failure claims for correction are not entertainable, especially when the error pertains to fundamental eligibility criteria. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Nisha Khan, challenged the Order dated July 14, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. 2092/2021. The Tribunal had dismissed her application seeking correction of errors in her application form to claim the status of a “ward of police personnel.”
The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) invited applications for the recruitment of Constable (Executive) Male/Female in Delhi Police on August 1, 2020. The petitioner submitted her online application on September 6, 2020. She stated that due to a network problem at a cyber café, she inadvertently marked:
- ‘Yes’ under Column No. 15 (Departmental Candidate) instead of ‘No’.
- ‘No’ under Column No. 16 (Ward of Serving/Retired/Deceased Police Personnel) instead of ‘Yes’.
The petitioner qualified for the written examination and appeared for the PEMT on July 26, 2021. She produced a certificate verifying that her father had been working as an Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in the Delhi Police since 1988. At the time of measurement, she was recorded at 154.5 cm (approx. 156 cm). The actual height requirement was 157 cm, but she was initially declared qualified by granting the relaxation available to wards of police personnel.
However, on the same day, officials flagged the discrepancy in her online application where she had filled ‘No’ in Column No. 16. On August 23, 2021, the respondents declared her disqualified in height, treating her as ineligible for relaxation because she had not claimed the specific category in her application form.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: The counsel for the petitioner argued that the error was “bona fide and clerical” and occurred because the petitioner, lacking a personal computer, relied on cyber café personnel during heavy website load.
- The counsel submitted that the petitioner had produced all original supporting documents, including her father’s employment certificate, at the PEMT stage.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Vashist Narayan Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2024) and the Delhi High Court judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. (2016), arguing that the law does not concern itself with trifles and candidates should not be penalized for trivial errors.
- It was also argued that Column No. 15 was redundant as there cannot be departmental candidates for the post of Constable.
Respondents’ Submissions: The counsel for the respondents contended that the Notice of Examination explicitly advised candidates to fill the form carefully.
- They cited Paragraph 20(8) of the advertisement, which stated: “Request for change/correction in any particulars in the Application Form, once submitted will not be entertained under any circumstances.”
- It was argued that the onus of filling correct particulars lies on the candidate. Allowing changes at a later stage would “open up a Pandora’s box” and hamper the functioning of the SSC, which handles crores of candidates.
- The respondents relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors. (2019), asserting that courts cannot sit in judgment over clear terms of an advertisement.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench rejected the petitioner’s contentions, affirming the Tribunal’s reliance on its earlier decision in Pooja Devi v. SSC & Ors., which held that candidates must fill forms “with eyes wide open.”
On the Duty of Candidates: The Court observed:
“A candidate for any examination is expected to verify the details and make necessary corrections before finally submitting the online application. A candidate cannot be allowed to approach the Court stating that they realised their mistake only when he/she failed to qualify. Such post-failure claims for correction are not entertainable.”
Distinguishing “Trivial Errors” from Fundamental Eligibility: The Bench distinguished the present case from the judgments cited by the petitioner (Vashist Narayan Kumar and Ajay Kumar Mishra). The Court noted that in those cases, the errors were mere typographical mistakes concerning the date of birth, which did not impact the candidate’s eligibility as they otherwise fulfilled the criteria. However, in the present case, the Court held:
“As far as the present case is concerned, however, the answer to Column 16 was fundamental to the eligibility of the petitioner as it would have entitled her to height relaxations which she required in order to fulfil the requisite criteria.”
On the Sanctity of Advertisement Terms: Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), the Court reiterated that if the terms of an advertisement are clear, the recruiting authority is the best judge of its requirements. The Court stated that the terms explicitly prohibited corrections after submission.
On Redundancy of Columns: Regarding the petitioner’s argument that Column No. 15 was redundant, the Court noted:
“The relevance of Column ’15’ was for the respondent to judge, and the petitioner having participated in the selection process, cannot claim any field in the application form to be redundant or immaterial.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the recruiting authority cannot be held responsible for the petitioner’s own mistakes. The Court noted that granting relief to the petitioner would deny equality to other similarly situated candidates who were excluded for similar errors.
The Bench ruled:
“For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition being bereft of merit is dismissed. The Impugned Order of the learned Tribunal is upheld.”
Case Details
- Case Title: Nisha Khan v. Delhi Police & Anr.
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 12698/2023 & CM APPL. 50157/2023
- Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain
- Citation: 2025:DHC:11194-DB
