07/09 2026 A/64/18 266312 NANDY (DO) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/16494/2026 ONKAR PUSHP VS COAL INDIA LIMITED & ANR. Mr. Ujjal Ray, Advocate Ms. Sayannita Auddy, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr. Ayan Poddar, Advocate Mr. Soham Dutta, Advocate Ms. Anjali Shaw, Advocate ……for the Coal India Limited 1. The exception to report, filed thereto is kept on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his candidature has not been considered, even though he fulfills all relevant criteria to be considered. 3. The facts of the case are fairly straightforward and simple. 4. The petitioner has been in service with the ICAR- IARI, Jharkhand as an Assistant from about January 2025. Pursuant to an advertisement no. 1/2025 issued by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process for the post of Management Trainee (Coal Preparation). 5. It is this recruitment process, which commenced on January 15, 2025 and terminated on February 14, 2025, being the last date for submission of online applications that the petitioner challenges by way of this writ petition. 6. The singular grievance of the petitioner is that he was unable to fill up the requisite particulars inasmuch as the “no objection certificate” by him could not be uploaded along with the form. P a g e | 2 7. Mr. Ray, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has made the following submissions in support of his case: a) The “no objection certificate”, which was a mandate under the advertisement, had to be uploaded along with the application form. b) The petitioner tried to upload the “no objection certificate” from ICAR on multiple attempts, which failed, as it subsequently transpired, due to several special characters being part of his employment ID. c) It is because of this technical glitch that the petitioner was unable to upload the requisite “no objection certificate”, thereby resulting in the form being incomplete and subject to rejection. d) The petitioner had also inadvertently stated in his application form that he was unemployed while he applied for this post with the respondent no. 2. e) He has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Madhya Pradesh in WP/19419/2020 (Rohit Gami vs. Union of India & Ors.). He has also relied upon, though not formally cited, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2024) 11 SCC 785 (Vashisht Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar). 8. According to Mr. Ray, the error, if at all, is attributable to a technical glitch for which his client cannot be faulted, and the candidature of his client cannot be rejected on this ground alone. 9. Mr. Poddar, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent authorities has made the following submissions: a) The alleged technical glitch was not of a nature which was unavoidable. b) If indeed the credentials of the petitioner could not be uploaded, the particular provision in the advertisement as entailed in paragraph 4(e) as well as under 9(i) reserve a right to an incumbent candidate to upload not just the “no P a g e | 3 objection certificate” but also, in the event, such a certificate could not be uploaded, a receipt copy of the application made by the incumbent to his present employer. c) Thus, the information submitted by the petitioner was incorrect and indeed false. d) The milieu of facts which emerges is also this, that the petitioner has made a false declaration in the application form that he was unemployed at present. e) He has also drawn attention to the attestation form disclosed in the report wherefrom it clearly appears that the petitioner, while disclosing his erstwhile employers, did not disclose under clause 11 thereof the name of his current employer. f) This is nothing short of a mis-declaration, which has to be dealt with in terms of the relevant clauses of the advertisement. g) He has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2005) 7 SCC 177 (A.P. Public Service Commission vs. Koneti Venkateswaralu & Ors.). 10. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and considered the documents on record as well as the decisions relied upon by them. 11. A classic case of perception has been made out by both Advocates. 12. Mr. Ray, appearing for the petitioner trivializes an inability on the part of the petitioner as a technical glitch, while Mr. Poddar appearing for the authorities defines inability as a mis-declaration. Perceptions are correct from both ends. This rather entangles the job of judicial pronouncement in this matter. 13. There is nothing on record to dispute the petitioner's case that the special characters in his P a g e | 4 employee ID were such that they could not be uploaded in the application form, thereby disabling the petitioner from uploading the form in its entirety with the “no objection certificate” that he had gathered from his current employer. So much can at best be termed as a glitch and not as much as a technical glitch. 14. Had the inability of the petitioner been restricted to this issue alone and nothing further, the classification of the acts of commission and/or omission of the petitioner could well have been termed as a mistake or error. However, to add to this inability of the petitioner is the fact that the petitioner made a declaration in the application form that he was currently unemployed. As if from the frying pan to fire, is the declaration in the attestation form by the petitioner, whereby he failed to declare his current place of employment and indeed made a declaration that he was currently unemployed. 15. This is clearly a mis-declaration. 16. Had the petitioner been subjected to a technical glitch and made a declaration that he was indeed currently employed, this matter would possibly have been dealt differently. 17. This declaration by the petitioner that he was not currently employed in at least two places, coupled with the fact that he also did not upload, which he could have, the application for no objection with his current employer, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of a mis-declaration. 18. Whether or not this mis-declaration grants him any P a g e | 5 additional benefit or alters the position of other competing candidates is of scant bearing in this case. An incumbent cannot be permitted to start his career at the very inception on the basis of a mis- declaration. This act of commission and/or omission of the petitioner in making a false declaration that he is not currently employed completely disables him for any sympathetic consideration. 19. This, along with a particular provision in the advertisement 1/2025, as contained in clause 10(k) thereof, that any mis-declaration by any candidate would entail consequences, has to be strictly construed. 20. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh was rendered in a matter where the authorities had admitted that there was indeed a technical glitch. Further, the petitioner had uploaded all his particulars correctly without any default. In the instant case, there is no proof of any technical glitch, let alone any admission. On the contrary, the petitioner has made repeated mis-declarations about his status as on the date of filing the online form. Thus, the ratio of Rohit Gami (supra) is wholly inapplicable to the facts of this case. 21. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vashisht Narayan Kumar (supra) is clear that the candidature of an incumbent can be cancelled even after appointment, if it is found that such candidate had made a mis-declaration or suppression or a misrepresentation to the authorities at the time of his application. P a g e | 6 22. The decision deals with trivial errors or omissions. This is not a case of trivial error or omission as on three separate occasions: first, the no objection certificate; second, the declaration in the form that he was unemployed; and third, not giving the particulars of the current employer in the attached form, clearly point to the fact that the petitioner has deliberately furnished incorrect information about himself. 23. The decision reported in Koneti Venkateswaralu (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is clear and unequivocal that the difference between a bona fide mistake and a false suggestion and suppression are indeed very severe. 24. In the instant case, the repeated instances of making false declarations by the petitioner leads to the inevitable conclusion that the petitioner has not approached the appointing authority with clean hands. 25. In these circumstances as afore-stated, I do not find any reason to interfere with the respondent's stand insofar as the petitioner is concerned, as entailed in the order/communication dated March 31, 2026. 26. Though the petitioner seems to suggest that the “no objection certificate” was disclosed at the time of verification of documents on February 26, 2026, since the process had already been undertaken, it would be improper to give any leverage to the petitioner at the stage of verification of the documents, which would alter the declaration made by him repeatedly. 27. In view of the afore-stated, the writ petition is P a g e | 7 dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 28. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)