Delhi High CourtVidyanand vs Central Airmen Selection Board & Ors. on 5 August, 2021Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 1235Author:Amit BansalBench:Rajiv Sahai Endlaw,Amit Bansal*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                    Date of decision: 5th August, 2021.\n\n+                        W.P.(C) 6989/2021\n       VIDYANAND                                          ..... Petitioner\n                         Through:     Mr.     Shrutanjaya      Bharadwaj,\n                                      Advocate.\n                       Versus\n     CENTRAL AIRMEN SELECTION BOARD & ORS.\n                                                      ..... Respondents\n                       Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi and Mr. Amit Gupta,\n                                   Advocates with Sargent Mr. D. N.\n                                   Srivastava.\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL\n                             JUDGMENT[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]\nAMIT BANSAL, J.1.   The petitioner appeared in the online test on 14th July, 2021 for\nselection to Group 'X' and Group 'Y' posts of 'Airmen' in the respondents\nIndian Air Force. He successfully completed the examination for Group 'X'\nposts but while he was sitting for the examination for Group 'Y' posts, he\nwas ordered to leave by the officials present at the examination centre. The\npetitioner claims that the reason why he was removed from examination of\nGroup 'Y' posts was that two photographs on the petitioner's admit card did\nnot match. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner has filed the present petition\nfor grant of a fresh opportunity to take the online test for Group 'Y' posts\nfor the same batch.W.P.(C) 6989/2021                                                 Page 1 of 62.     The petition came up before this bench on 30th July, 2021. On the\nbasis of the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that both the\nphotographs on the admit card of the petitioner were the same, the counsel\nfor the respondent was asked to take instructions.3.     The counsel for the respondents has obtained instructions and he\nappears along with Mr. D. N. Srivastava, Sargent. The counsel for the\nrespondent has drawn our attention to Clause 4(c) of the advertisement dated\n22nd January, 2021, (Annexure P-3 of the petition), which is set out below:(c) Passport size recent colour photograph (taken not before\n      December 2020) of size 10 KB to 50 KB (front portrait in light\n      background without head gear except for Sikhs). The\n      photograph is to be taken with candidate holding a black slate\n      in front of his chest with his name and date of photograph\n      taken, clearly written on it with white chalk in capital letters.4.     The counsel for the respondents contends; (i) that in terms of the\naforesaid Clause, the petitioner failed to upload a photograph with the\npetitioner holding a black slate in front of his chest with his name and date\nof photograph; (ii) that Clause 4(c) was a mandatory condition and since the\npetitioner did not comply with the same he was disqualified; (iii) that several\nother candidates who sat for this examination have been disqualified on\naccount of non-adherence to mandatory conditions of the advertisement and\ntherefore no exception can be made in the case of the petitioner; (iv) that the\nexam was conducted for lakhs of students all over India and it cannot be\nheld again only for the petitioner on account of his lapse; (v) that the\npetitioner is only 18 years old and he would have opportunities to appear forW.P.(C) 6989/2021                                                     Page 2 of 6the said exam again. The counsel for the respondents relied upon the\nSupreme Court judgment inState of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. G.\nHemalathaa and Another2019 SCC OnLine 1113, which has been\nfollowed by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 13 th\nSeptember, 2019 in LPA 591/2019 titledParvesh Vs. Union of India.5.     The counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents never\ntook the objection with reference to condition 4(c) above. As per the counsel\nfor the petitioner, the only objection taken by the respondents was that the\ntwo photographs of the petitioner attached on the admit card did not match.\nHad there been objection with regard to the photograph uploaded by the\npetitioner, the respondents would have conveyed the same to the petitioner\nsince the said photograph was uploaded in January, 2021. It is further\ncontended that the sole purpose of uploading a photograph and then\nattaching the same to the admit card was to prevent impersonation. But since\nrespondents had already required the petitioner to upload his Aadhaar, there\ncould not be any case of impersonation. The respondents had not given any\nreasons for disqualification of the petitioner and his disqualification on\naccount of non-compliance with condition 4(c) is being taken for the first\ntime now. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the condition 4(c) in\nthe advertisement was directory and not mandatory and therefore even if the\npetitioner had not strictly followed the same, it cannot be held against him.\nHe relies upon judgment of Kerala High Court inSatheesh Kumar T.T. &\nothers Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission & others2014 SCC OnLine\n20212.W.P.(C) 6989/2021                                                 Page 3 of 66.     In our view, there is no basis for the petitioner to contend that the\ncondition 4(c) above was not mandatory. There is nothing in the\nadvertisement or anywhere else to suggest that the aforesaid condition was\nnot to be strictly complied with by the candidates applying for the post. As a\ncandidate, applying for a sensitive post such as Airman in the Indian Air\nForce, the petitioner should have taken care to strictly follow and comply\nwith the various terms and conditions as prescribed in the advertisement. It\nis not for the petitioner to decide for himself if condition was mandatory or\nnot. The petitioner ought to have been aware of the terms and conditions of\nthe advertisement pursuant to which he applied for the job of Airman.\nHaving applied for the post, on the basis of terms and conditions prescribed\nin the advertisement, the petitioner cannot question or challenge the said\nconditions later, after he has been disqualified on account of non-\ncompliance thereof.7.     There was no basis for the petitioner to assume that his\ndisqualification was on account of difference between the two photographs\nof the admit card. There was nothing communicated by the respondents that\nsuggested so. No merit is found in the contention of the petitioner that the\nrespondents have not given any reasons as to why the petitioner was\ndisqualified. In a competitive exam, there are lakhs of candidates who apply\nand many of them would be rejected for non-compliance with the prescribed\nconditions, the respondents cannot be expected to individually communicate\neach of the candidates the reasons of their disqualification/rejection.8.     The Supreme Court inG. Hemalathaa(supra) while dealing with an\nexamination conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, whereW.P.(C) 6989/2021                                                    Page 4 of 6the candidate in violation of the conditions underlined the answer sheet with\npencil, observed as under:"8.      We have given our anxious consideration to the\n      submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the\n      Respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are\n      mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly\n      complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of\n      the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in\n      exercise of powers underArticle 226of the Constitution cannot\n      modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission."9.       The Judgment inG. Hemalathaa(supra) has been followed by this\nCourt inParvesh(supra).The petitioner inParvesh(supra) was an\napplicant for Staff Selection Commission examination and had made a\nmistake in filling the form and sought correction thereof. The contention of\nthe petitioner that the instructions for filling the form were not mandatory in\nnature and are merely directory in nature was rejected by observing as\nunder:"7.      Much has been argued by the counsel for the appellant\n      that the instructions, which are at Annexure P-3, are not\n      mandatory in nature and are merely directory in nature. We\n      cannot accept this contention, especially looking to the clauses of\n      the instructions, as stated hereinabove. No changes in a filled-up\n      form are permitted. If such changes are allowed, there may be\n      more applicants who may seek changes in filled-up forms every\n      now and then. Alterations or amendments in completed forms byW.P.(C) 6989/2021                                                   Page 5 of 6applicants cannot be allowed as a regular feature. The\n      applicants are not illiterate persons. These applicants are in\n      search of Government employment, such as Lower Division\n      Clerk, Junior Secretariat Assistant, Postal Assistant, Data Entry\n      Operators etc. The public advertisement, regarding these\n      vacancies, was dated 18th November, 2017. When an applicant\n      applies for such public posts, he must be careful in filling up the\n      forms. Once the form is filled up, the candidates know, in\n      advance, that no alteration shall be permitted. This alteration\n      prayed for by this appellant, from 'Hindi Typing Test' to 'English\n      Typing Test', is not permissible at this stage."10.    The judgment inSatheesh Kumar T.T.(supra) relied upon by the\ncounsel for the petitioner was in the context of appointment for the post of\n'mazdoor' as opposed to the post of 'Airmen' involved in the case at hand.\nEven otherwise, in light of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court\nand Coordinate Bench of this Court, no reliance can be placed on the same.11.    No merit is found in the petition.Dismissed.AMIT BANSAL, J.RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.AUGUST 5, 2021\nsrW.P.(C) 6989/2021                                                   Page 6 of 6