‘Two spouses’: Punjab and Haryana HC rejects advocate’s plea over mistake in application form

The petitioner, who applied under the 25 per cent quota reserved for advocates, had listed his wife’s name in the column requesting details of the spouse. But when asked whether he had more than one living spouse, he inadvertently clicked “Yes” instead of “No.”

On that basis, the selection committee disqualified him, citing Clause 4.1 of the recruitment notification, which makes anyone with more than one spouse living ineligible.

The petitioner’s counsel, Mazlish Khan, argued that it was a genuine mistake, stressing that he had only one wife and had mentioned her name clearly. He even submitted an affidavit and representation in early September clarifying the error, before the written exam scheduled for September 19. “There was no intention to mislead or gain any advantage. No prejudice would have been caused to others,” his counsel pleaded.

But the counsel for Haryana argued, “If a candidate aspiring for such an onerous position cannot be careful while filling his form, then we shudder to think what will happen in future”. It was also pointed out that a clause in the form made it clear that this information while be final.

Chief Justice Nagu noted that, unlike online forms filled through cyber cafés, where some leniency had been shown in past cases, this was a handwritten application that the candidate himself was responsible for.

The judges further stressed that recruitment exams are complex processes bound by strict timelines. Allowing corrections after the July 31 cut-off date would open the floodgates for others to claim inadvertent errors, potentially delaying the entire exercise, they said.

“Even the slightest mistake in such competitive examinations can entail cancellation of candidature,” the court said, dismissing the plea.

The affidavit submitted on September 6, the court added, came well after the cut-off date and could not cure the defect. With that, the petition was consigned to the rejection list, ironically for ticking the wrong box about having more than one living spouse.

From the homepage

SC on amended Waqf Act: What has been stayed, what remains

Congress seeks 70 seats in Bihar, of these 27 are ‘good’ by its yardstick

‘Despite pleading, she purposely took us to a small hospital far away’: Wife of Finance Ministry officer killed in BMW accident to cops; driver arrested