Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Shanta Digambar Sonawane, a 100% permanently visually impaired individual, applied for the post of Assistant under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities category pursuant to Notification 01/2019 issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell. While filling the online application form with the assistance of a person at an internet cafe, her date of birth was erroneously entered as 10 January 1992 instead of the correct date 10 January 1993. She successfully passed the examination and was called for document verification on 17 February 2023, where she was informed that she could later modify the date of birth. However, during supplementary document verification on 3 April 2023, her updated Aadhar card with the correct date of birth was refused. Her representation to the chairperson of the Railway Recruitment Cell on 27 June 2023 went unanswered, and she was orally informed that her candidature was rejected without any written communication. The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to set aside the oral rejection and to consider her candidature with the corrected date of birth. The court, comprising Justices Nitin Jamdar and M.M. Sathaye, observed that the case illustrated how administrative apathy can defeat the benefits of legislation enacted to support persons with disabilities. The court noted that the error in the date of birth was a bona fide mistake made by a third party while assisting the visually impaired petitioner, and the respondents had initially assured her that the correction could be made later. The court held that the rejection of her candidature on this ground was unjust and directed the respondents to accept the corrected date of birth and consider her candidature for the post of Assistant. The petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Administrative Apathy - Bona Fide Mistake - The case illustrates how administrative apathy can defeat the benefits of legislation enacted to support persons with disabilities. The court held that the rejection of candidature due to a bona fide error in date of birth, caused by a third party assisting a visually impaired candidate, was unjust and directed the respondents to consider the corrected date of birth. (Paras 2, 5-6) B) Disability Law - Persons with Benchmark Disabilities - Recruitment - The court emphasized that the benefits of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 should not be defeated by technicalities. The petitioner, being 100% permanently visually impaired, was entitled to reasonable accommodation and correction of the error. (Paras 2, 5-6) C) Service Law - Recruitment - Correction of Date of Birth - The court held that where a candidate with a disability makes a bona fide mistake in the application form due to reliance on a third party, the recruiting authority should permit correction of the date of birth, especially when the candidate has passed the examination and the error is not intentional. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the candidature of a visually impaired candidate can be rejected due to an erroneous entry of date of birth in the application form, which was a bona fide mistake made by a third party while assisting the candidate, and whether the respondents are obligated to consider the corrected date of birth.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to accept the corrected date of birth of the petitioner as 10 January 1993 and consider her candidature for the post of Assistant. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Administrative apathy
- Persons with Disabilities Act
- 2016
- correction of date of birth
- bona fide mistake
- visually impaired candidate
- recruitment process
- document verification
