Delhi High Court: A petition was filed under Article 226 by the petitioner, who is aspiring to join the Indian Coast Guard (ICG) as a Navik (Domestic Branch) in pursuance to the selection process conducted in accordance with Notification No. 01/2023 assailing the respondents’ decision to cancel his candidature. A division bench of Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., directed that the respondents conduct a verification of the documents submitted by the petitioner to prove his identity and date of birth and if the petitioner’s identity and date of birth were found to be correct, he would be allowed to join the induction course in the next available batch, subject to his completion of all requisite formalities, including passing the medical examination.
The petitioner, a resident of Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, had graduated high school in 2017. Upon the release of the recruitment notification, he appeared for the Stage-I examination on 22-11-2022, clearing it successfully. Afterward, he appeared for the Physical Fitness Test (PFT) in Visakhapatnam on 09-01-2023. However, before the Stage-II examination, the petitioner faced rejection of his candidature due to a discrepancy in his father’s name in his Class-X certificate and Caste Certificate. His father’s name was recorded as “Vikrma Paswan” in the Caste Certificate and “Vikram Paswan” in the Class-X certificate. Following a judicial intervention, the Court ruled that this discrepancy was merely a typographical error, allowing him to proceed with the Stage-III induction training.
Upon reaching the Stage-III induction at INS Chilka on 16-06-2023, the petitioner submitted his original documents for verification. The Coast Guard officials, after scrutiny, found no discrepancies in most of his documents, but during the Aadhaar verification process, his identity came into question due to multiple changes made in his Aadhaar details, including alterations to his name and date of birth. Although the petitioner provided a detailed explanation for these changes, including a written undertaking justifying the corrections made to his Aadhaar, his candidacy was put on hold, and he was denied permission to complete his medical test. Despite submitting further documentation to verify his identity, the Coast Guard Headquarters informed him that his candidacy was under review, based on the belief that his Aadhaar had been fraudulently modified multiple times.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the changes in the Aadhaar Card cannot be the sole ground to reject the petitioner’s candidature. Since all the other documents presented by the petitioner have been verified and there are no lacunae found in the other documents, the petitioner’s candidature is accepted.
The Court noted that the process of document verification involves authenticating a document in order to ensure that the same is genuine and true for its intended purpose. At the time of selection of a candidate for a post in the Force, various documents are required to confirm the identity of such candidate, as well as other particulars of his eligibility to the said post. The Aadhaar Card is one such vital document required to establish the identity of a person.
The Court further noted that the petitioner claims to have submitted other documents as well to the respondents to prove his identity and date of birth. No effort was made by the respondents to verify the same. Therefore, the respondents have failed to establish that the petitioner had tried to manipulate his date of birth in the Aadhaar Card furnished by him, as there is no mismatch regarding his personal information in the Aadhaar Card and the various other documents provided by him to the respondents. More so, the petitioner had applied for the corrections in his Aadhaar Card on 12-06-2017, whereas he had applied to join the Indian Coast Guard, which is well before the petitioner applied for the said post.
The Court concluded that UIDAI, being the body responsible for issuing the Aadhaar Cards, has not raised any objection regarding the changes made by the petitioner in his Aadhaar Card. It is, therefore, not open to the respondents to contend that the changes were not permitted in terms of the guidelines issued by the UIDAI. Thus, the respondents have failed to even remotely indicate that the petitioner was intending to produce a fraudulent Aadhaar Card. The respondents ought to have scrutinized all the documents produced by the petitioner in conjunction, to verify the particulars of his name and date of birth.
Thus, the Court held that the decision of the respondents to reject the candidature of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The Court directed that the respondents should carry out a verification of the other documents submitted by the petitioner to prove his identity and date of birth. If the petitioner’s identity and date of birth are found to be correct, then subject to the petitioner completing all the other requisite formalities and clearing all the subsequent stages, including the medical examination, the petitioner shall be allowed to join the Induction Course with the next batch. However, it is made clear that his seniority shall be reckoned with his current batchmates of NAVIK(GD) with all consequential benefits except that he shall not be entitled to payment of salary for the said period.
[Vikki Kumar Paswan v. UOI, W.P.(C) 9453/2023, decided on 07-11-2024]
Judgment authored by Justice Shalinder Kaur
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Abhinay Sharma, Mr. Pooran Chand Roy, Ms. Deeksha Prakash, Ms. Parul Khurana & Ms. Kirti Vyas, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Umesh K. Burnwal, SPC with Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Harish Adhikari & Mr. Kunal Malik, Advocates for respondents
The post appeared first on .