# Pankhudi Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 315
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-17
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 8882 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh, Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pankhudi-agarwal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50623
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Recruitment Law - Change of Reservation
Category After Application Deadline -
Interpretation of 'False or Misleading
Information' - Mid-Process Amendment in
Selection Criteria - Vested Right of
Consideration

The petitioner, who initially applied for the post
of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under the DFF
(Dependent of Freedom Fighter) and EWS
(Economically Weaker Section) categories in
response to Advertisement No. A-5/E-1/2022
issued by UPPSC, later sought to withdraw her
DFF claim upon realizing her ineligibility. She
requested correction to be treated under EWS
category
alone
after
the
declaration
of
Preliminary Exam result. UPPSC rejected this
request, citing Clauses 2 and 11(18) of the
'Necessary Information' as prohibiting any postdeadline changes to category claims. The High
Court held that although the petitioner could not
amend her reservation category post-deadline
under Clause 11(18), the failure to substantiate
her DFF claim did not constitute a 'false' or
'misleading' claim under the said clause. Relying
on dictionary and judicial interpretation of the
terms "false" and "misleading," the Court
distinguished
between
incomplete/incorrect
claims and deceitful submissions. As the
petitioner had not filed any document to support
the DFF category, and had qualified under EWS
cut-off, her candidature could not be cancelled
outright. Incomplete or unsubstantiated claims
are not automatically 'false' or 'misleading.'
Reservation claims not supported by certificates
can be denied, but candidature cannot be
cancelled.

Case Law Citations:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,997 of 50,374. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._

8 All. Pankhudi Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
315
No. 370 of 2022 and consequent order of
punishment dated 22.12.2021 imposed by
the disciplinary authority. The petitioner
shall be entitled for all consequential reliefs
as per the rules.

(38) It is clarified that the present
order shall not be treated as precedent as
the same has been rendered in the peculiar
facts of the present case.

(39) There shall be no orders as to
cost.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 315
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Writ A No. 8882 of 2023

Pankhudi Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prabhav Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri M.N. Singh, Sri G.K. Singh
(Senior Adv.)

Recruitment Law - Change of Reservation
Category After Application Deadline -
Interpretation of 'False or Misleading
Information' - Mid-Process Amendment in
Selection Criteria - Vested Right of
Consideration

The petitioner, who initially applied for the post
of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under the DFF
(Dependent of Freedom Fighter) and EWS
(Economically Weaker Section) categories in
response to Advertisement No. A-5/E-1/2022
issued by UPPSC, later sought to withdraw her
DFF claim upon realizing her ineligibility. She
requested correction to be treated under EWS
category
alone
after
the
declaration
of
Preliminary Exam result. UPPSC rejected this
request, citing Clauses 2 and 11(18) of the
'Necessary Information' as prohibiting any postdeadline changes to category claims. The High
Court held that although the petitioner could not
amend her reservation category post-deadline
under Clause 11(18), the failure to substantiate
her DFF claim did not constitute a 'false' or
'misleading' claim under the said clause. Relying
on dictionary and judicial interpretation of the
terms "false" and "misleading," the Court
distinguished
between
incomplete/incorrect
claims and deceitful submissions. As the
petitioner had not filed any document to support
the DFF category, and had qualified under EWS
cut-off, her candidature could not be cancelled
outright. Incomplete or unsubstantiated claims
are not automatically 'false' or 'misleading.'
Reservation claims not supported by certificates
can be denied, but candidature cannot be
cancelled.

Case Law Citations:

1. Union Public Service Commission Vs Bibhu
Prasad Sarangi & anr. - (2021) 4 SCC 516

2. N.T. Devin Katti & ors. Vs Karnataka Public
Service Commission & ors.- (1990) 3 SCC 15

3. K. Manjusree Vs St. of Andhra Pradesh &
anr.- (2008) 3 SCC 512

4. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve Vs St. of Mah. &
ors.- (2001) 10 SCC 111

5. Kumari Shraddha Vs St. of U.P. & ors.- Writ A
No. 8825 of 2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal
Singh, J.
&
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Prabhav Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri G.K.
Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
M.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent
nos. 2 & 3 and Shri Mukul Tripathi, learned
Standing Counsel.

2. Present petition has been filed
against the communication dated 29.4.2023
issued by Under Secretary, Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission ('UPPSC' in
short) and the further communication dated
10.5.2023 issued on behalf of the Appeal
Authority of the UPPSC rejecting the
request of the petitioner to be treated as a
candidate
belonging
to
Economically
Weaker Section ('EWS' in short) category,
while giving up her claim, Dependent of
Freedom Fighter ('DFF' in short).

3. Facts relevant to decide the present
controversy are, the UPPSC came out with
the
Advertisement
No.
A-5/E-1/2022
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
'Advertisement'),
dated
10.12.2022,
inviting applications to participate at an
Open Examination to be conducted by the
UPPSC, for selection on the post of Civil
Judge (Junior Division). In all, 303
vacancies were advertised. Of that, 123
vacancies
fell
under
the
Unreserved
(General) category, while by way of
vertical reservation provided, 81 vacancies
were reserved for Other Backward Classes
(OBC)
category,
63
vacancies
were
reserved
for
Scheduled
Castes
(SC)
category, 6 vacancies were reserved for
Scheduled Tribes (ST) category. Further, by
way of horizontal reservation provided, 30
vacancies were reserved for EWS category,
15 vacancies were reserved for ExServicemen category, 6 vacancies were
reserved for DFF category, 60 vacancies
were reserved for Women category and 12
vacancies were reserved for Persons with
Disabilities category. Petitioner filled up
the said form disclosing, she belonged to
DFF & EWS categories.

4. Consequently, she was issued an
admit card and she appeared at the
Preliminary Examination on 12.2.2023.
Upon declaration of the result of that
examination,
on
16.3.2023,
she
was
included in the list of candidates declared
successful. She was then required to fill up
another form (to appear at the Mains
(Written) Examination), and to submit
documentary proof as to her eligibility and
reservation claimed.

5. At that stage, the petitioner appears
to have realized, she was not eligible to
claim reservation under the DFF category.
Thus, she wrote to the UPPSC on
29.3.2023, to be treated, non-DFF category
candidate. It is that application moved by
the petitioner that came to be rejected, by
communication dated 29.4.2023, issued by
the Under Secretary, UPPSC as was
confirmed
in
appeal
vide
further
communication dated 10.5.2023. At that
stage and before the written examination
could be held, the petitioner approached
this Court by means of the present petition.
Upon hearing, on 22.5.2023, the following
order was passed:

"1.
Heard
Sri
Prabhav
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner; Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel
for the Commission and learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondent.

2.
Submission
is
that
the
petitioner while filling up the form for
preliminary
examination
by
mistake
applied as 'Dependent of Freedom Fighter'
(for short "DFF") though she belongs to
Economically Weaker Section (for short
"EWS") category. Upon qualifying the
preliminary examination, she realised her
mistake and tried to fill up the form as a
EWS category candidate. As far as the
8 All. Pankhudi Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
317
DFF,
she
sought
correction
in
the
application, which has been rejected.

3. Relying on Note 6 of Clause 7
pertaining
to
reservation
under
Advertisement
No.A-5/E-1/2022,
dated
10.12.2022, the Commission may not have
cancelled the petitioner's candidature as
she did not make any false or misleading
claim as may invite action under sub
Clause 18 of Clause 11 of the above
advertisement.

4. Prima-facie the matter requires
serious consideration.

5. Upon the matter being heard in the
pre-lunch session, Sri M.N. Singh was
required to produce the result of the
preliminary examination concerning the
present petitioner, in sealed cover. After
lunch that result has been produced. The
petitioner has obtained more than the cut
off marks under EWS category.

6. Since the examination is to be
held from tomorrow onwards, as an interim
measure, it is provided that the Commission
would allow the petitioner to appear in the
examination provisionally subject to the
final out come of the present writ petition.
However final result of the petitioner may
not be declared except with leave of the
Court.

7. Since the issue involved is
purely legal, learned counsel for the
Commission prays for and is granted two
weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit
within one week thereafter. Thus we expect,
the pleadings would be completed in the
first week of July 2023.

8. Put up on 10.07.2023, in top
ten cases.

9. The result has been returned to
Sri M.N. Singh in sealed cover.

10. Copy of the order be provided
to learned counsel for the petitioner today
itself."

6. Consequent to the above order, the
petitioner appeared at the Mains (Written)
Examination.
Its
result
is
awaited.
Meanwhile, pleadings are complete and
accordingly the matter has been heard.

7. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner are two fold. First, relying on
Clause 2 of the Advertisement read with
Clause
11(14)
of
the
'Necessary
Information to Applicants for Filling Their
Applications Through On-Line', it has been
submitted, the information filled by the
petitioner while applying through on-line
mode, was not sacrosanct. It could be
edited, and any inaccuracy therein, could
be corrected by the candidate through online mode, without inviting any adverse
consequence. Since, the last date for
making the online correction had expired
on 10.1.2023, by virtue of Clause 11(14),
the
petitioner
was
permitted
to
communicate such change through off-line
mode i.e., through postal communication.
UPPSC has erred in not entertaining such
application for correction made by the
petitioner on 29.3.2023 i.e., immediately
after declaration of the result of the
Preliminary Examination.

8. Second, relying on Clause 7(6)
pertaining to 'Reservation' read with Clause
11(30) of the 'Necessary Information to
Applicants for Filling Their Applications
Through On-Line', it has been submitted, as
to reservation, incomplete disclosure of
facts made by the petitioner (for the
purpose of claiming reservation), did not
invite
the
harsh
consequence
of
cancellation of her candidature, rather, it
invited the consequence of ineligibility to
claim that (DFF) reservation, only. Thus,
by way of example, it has been submitted,
if a candidate claimed to be one belonging
to a reserved category at the stage of
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
preliminary examination and he failed to
establish
his
credential
as
to
that
reservation, at the stage of filling up the
form for Written (Mains) Examination,
without making any 'false' or 'misleading'
statement, he would remain entitled to be
considered as an Unreserved (General)
category candidate, but he may not lose his
candidature, in entirety.

9. To bolster his submission, learned
counsel for the petitioner has then referred
to Clauses 7(7) and 7(23) to submit,
different
consequences
would
arise
including rejection of reservation and even
candidature,
in
different
specified
circumstances. Thus, a candidate who may
not have annexed his eligibility certificates,
to establish his 'Educational Qualifications',
or a candidate who may have failed to
submit his application on the prescribed
form or failed to disclose his date of birth
or to have not mentioned or to have
disclosed wrong date of birth etc., would
suffer
the
harsh
consequence
of
cancellation of candidature, in entirety.

10. Last, it has been submitted, under
the General Instruction no.3, that is also a
part of the Advertisement, it was open to a
candidate to seek reservation under more
than one category. However, even in a case
of proper documentation made - to claim
all such reservations, such candidate would
be entitled to only one reservation - which
may be more beneficial, in his facts.

11. Referring to the facts of the
present case, it has been submitted, the
petitioner may, at most, have failed to
establish her claim for reservation as a DFF
candidate. Insofar as she had not filed any
document in support of such claim, her
claim may never be described as a 'false'
and/or a 'misleading' claim. For that
conclusion to arise, there must have preexisted, a case of positive action or
concealment practiced by the petitioner, in
making a 'false' or 'misleading' claim. A
simple case of incorrect disclosure or
incomplete
disclosure
may
never
be
equated to a false or misleading claim as
may lead to such a harsh consequence, in
law. Insofar as the petitioner is seen to have
obtained more than the cut-off marks for an
EWS category candidate, she did not lose
her right to compete at the written
examination as an EWS candidate.

12. As to the Notification dated
24.3.2023 issued after the declaration of the
result of the Preliminary Examination
(Clause 4 thereof), it has been submitted,
that change in the eligibility for the Mains
(Written) Examination was first sought to
be enforced by the UPPSC vide that
notification issued during the ongoing
selection process. That has been resisted on
the fundamental principle, UPPSC may not
change its procedure (to make selections),
during an ongoing selection process. The
change, if at all, would apply prospectively,
to fresh selections, only.

13. In support of his submissions
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
on the full bench decision of this Court in
Special Appeal No. 156 of 2017 (Gaurav
Sharma vs State of U.P. & 3 Ors.) and
connected matters, decided on 4.5.2017. He
has also relied on the decisions of the
Supreme Court in T. Nadu Computer SC
B.Ed. G.T. Welf. Society vs Higher Sec. Scl.
Computer Tech. Assn. & Ors., (2009) 14
SCC 517 and Sureshkumar Lalitkumar
Patel & Ors. vs State of Gujarat & Ors.,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 167.

14. On the other hand, Shri G.K.
Singh, learned senior counsel for the
8 All. Pankhudi Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
319
UPPSC submits, the terms and conditions
of the Advertisement are sacrosanct.
Besides the Clause 4 of the Notification
dated 24.3.2023, even under the original
Advertisement,
all
candidates
were
mandatorily required to submit their online
form, by the cut-off date 10.1.2023, clearly
disclosing the category under which they
were
claiming
their
eligibility.
The
petitioner having claimed to be a person
belonging to DFF category, she may never
have changed her category, later. Therefore,
the UPPSC has rightly rejected the
candidature of the petitioner arising from
her application dated 29.3.2023, seeking
change of category.

15. Second, it has been submitted, the
only provision to allow for change of
category, existed under Clause 2 of the
'Necessary Information to Applicants for
Filling Their Applications Through OnLine'. The date for the same expired on
10.1.2023. The petitioner failed to take
benefit of the same. Then, it has been
submitted, at the stage of filling the form
for the Mains (Written) Examination,
further requirement arose to the petitioner
to file documents in support of the
information furnished by her in her original
application
(submitted
through
online
mode). At that stage, the petitioner could
not have chosen - to not file the necessary
certificates. Referring to Clause 11(7) of
the 'Necessary Information to Applicants
for Filling Their Applications Through OnLine',
it
has
been
submitted,
the
consequence
of
non-filing
of
such
documents
is
provided
by
way
of
cancellation of the candidature, in entirety.
Since the petitioner did not file the
certificates/documents to establish that she
belonged to DFF category, she cannot
escape the consequence of cancellation of
her candidature.

16. In support of above, reference has
also been made to the provision of Clause
7(18) of the 'Necessary Information to
Applicants for Filling Their Applications
Through On-Line', to submit, change of
category
or
sub-category
was
not
permissible to the petitioner after 10.1.2023
i.e., after the cut-off date. Since it is the
own case of the petitioner that she did not
belong to DFF category, she had given
'false' and/or 'misleading' information.
Therefore, her candidature was rightly
rejected.

17. In support of his submission,
learned senior counsel for the UPPSC has
relied on two decisions of learned single
Judge of this Court in Vaishali Dwivedi vs
State of U.P. & 2 Ors., Writ - A No.
15413 of 2022 decided on 27.9.2022 and
Satyendra Kumar Mishra vs State of
U.P. & 2 Ors., Writ - A No. 3841 of 2023,
decided on 17.3.2023. He has also relied
on the full bench decision of this Court in
Rajendra Patel vs State of U.P. & Anr.,
(2015) 8 ADJ 219 (FB).

18. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the record,
besides the undisputed facts as noted
above, it would be relevant to extract the
Clauses 2, 7(6), 11(7), 11(14), 11(18),
11(23),
11(30)
of
the
'Necessary
Information to Applicants for Filling Their
Applications Through On-Line'. These
clauses read as below:

"2.
Modify
Submitted
Application: If a candidate comes to know
about any error/errors in the submitted
application form except in the name of
exam and type of recruitment. Registered
Mobile
Number,
E-mail
ID,
Aadhar
Number and such cases where prescribed
fee for modified category is higher (in case
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of error in these entries, candidate may
submit
new
online
application
with
prescribed fee only as previously deposited
fee will neither be adjusted nor refunded)
he/she will be given only one opportunity to
modify it/them according to the following
procedure before the last date of the
submission of application form.

7(6): It is mandatory for the
candidates to enclose self attested copies of
all marksheets and certificates alongwith
the application forms of Main (Written)
Examination in support of the claims made
by them in their application forms of
Preliminary
Examination
regarding
eligibility and category/sub-category for
the benefit of reservation failing which
their claim as a reserve category candidate
shall not be entertained.

11(7): The candidates will have
to
enclose
self
attested
copies
of
marksheets,
certificates
and
degree
alongwith the application form of main
examination in support of their claims of
Educational Qualifications. If they do not
enclose self attested certificates/documents
in support of their claims, the applications
shall be rejected.

11(14): In every correspondence
with
the
Commission,
the
name
of
Examination,
Advertisement
No.
Registration No. Name of Candidate, Date
of Birth & Roll No. (if communicated)
Should be mentioned.

11(18): The claim of category,
subcategory, domicile, gender, date of
birth, name and address will be valid only
till the last date of applying on line
application. No change will be admissible
after
this.
On
submission
of
false/misleading
information,
the
candidature will be cancelled. In this
regard
no
application
for
error
correction/modification
shall
be
acceptable. Incomplete Application form
shall be summarily rejected and no
correspondence shall be entertained in this
regard.

11(23):
The
application/candidature
will
be
rejected/cancelled if the application is not
submitted on prescribed form, date of birth
is not mentioned or wrong date of birth is
mentioned,
overage,
under
age,
not
fulfilling
the
minimum
educational
qualifications, applications received after
last
date
and
no
signature
under
declaration in the format.

11(30):
The
candidates
of
reserved categories will be adjusted against
the Unreserved Category in the final
selection only if he/she will not avail any
benefit/concession in qualifying standard at
the state of Preliminary/Main/Screening
Examination."

19. Also, relevant to the controversy
at
hand,
the
provision
of
General
Instructions no.3 may also be taken note of,
as below:

"3. Those candidates, willing to
take the benefit of the reservation/age
relaxation must obtain a certificate, issued
by the competent authority, in support of
the reserved category, in the prescribed
format
printed
in
this
detailed
advertisement (Appendix-3) and submit the
same to the Commission whenever required
to do so. Those claiming more than one
reservation/age relaxation will be given
only one such concession, which will be
more beneficial. The Candidates who are
not originally domicile of U.P. belonging to
SC, ST, O.B.C. dependants of freedom
fighters, Ex-Servicemen, Skilled Players,
and Persons with Disabilities (Pwds) are
not entitled to benefit of reservation/age
relaxation. Such candidates will be treated
as unreserved (General) candidates. In
8 All. Pankhudi Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
321
case of the women candidates, the caste
certificate issued from father side will be
treated valid."

20. Having given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced
at the bar, we find, under the terms and
conditions of the Advertisement, there was
no option to the petitioner, but to submit
her original/first application through the
online mode, to appear at the Preliminary
Examination. In view of the language of
Clause 2 of 'Necessary Information to
Applicants for Filling Their Applications
Through On-Line', the petitioner was
effectively prevented from seeking any
change in her application form, after
10.1.2023. That being the last date to fill
her application form, the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner - based on
Clause 11(14) does not impress us. While
the UPPSC may have allowed for physical
correspondence to arise through offline
mode, it may never be inferred therefrom,
that the mandatory condition and the
timeline with respect to amendment and
correction in the original application form
stood extended, by necessary implication.

21. Allowing a postal correspondence
to arise, in no way granted or created any
right to the applicant, to correct/change the
details submitted on her original/first
application,
submitted
earlier,
electronically. In absence of any inherent or
recognized right existing (as to that) after
the cut-off date, the first submission
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner does not merit our acceptance. It
is rejected.

22. Insofar as the second submission
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner is concerned, the scheme of the
selection,
as
contained
in
the
Advertisement, appears to be that the
petitioner and the other candidates were
allowed to appear at the Preliminary
Examination on the strength of the self-
disclosure
made
by
them
(in
their
applications submitted online), without
verification made by the UPPSC, at that
stage. That also appears to be the widely
accepted mode at public examinations.
These days, large number of candidates
appear at public examinations, for a very
few posts. Therefore, it does appear highly
improbable and time consuming for the
selection
bodies
to
carry
out
due
verification of all candidates, at the first
stage of the selection process. It also allows
the selection bodies access to higher fee
collections. Thus, only after most of the
candidates get screened out during the
process of the Preliminary Examination,
the more serious phase of the selection and
verification is undertaken by UPPSC,
through the Mains (Written) Examination
and Interview/Viva Voce. Upon query
made, the learned senior counsel for the
UPPSC does not dispute this assumption.

23. Looked in that light, we first take
note
of
Clause
7(6)
of
'Necessary
Information to Applicants for Filling Their
Applications Through On-Line'. It appears
to suggest that the benefit of reservation
under any category/sub-category would fail
if the self-attested certificate forming the
basis of such claim were not enclosed with
the offline/second application form - to be
submitted before the Mains (Written)
Examination. Here, it is undisputed, the
offline application was to be submitted only
after
qualifying
at
the
Preliminary
Examination i.e., at the stage of Mains
(Written) Examination.

24. Thus, in the first place, a
candidate who may have first claimed
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reservation under any category (in the form
submitted online) and failed to enclose his
self-attested category certificate (with his
offline
application),
would
lose
his
entitlement to his claim, as a reserved
category candidate. There is no quarrel
between the parties, the petitioner lost her
claim as a DFF category candidate, for
reason of having not enclosed her selfattested certificate to claim that benefit
under that category of reservation, along
with her offline application form.

25. Insofar as Clause 11(7) of
'Necessary Information to Applicants for
Filling Their Applications Through OnLine' is concerned, the same appears to
apply solely to 'Educational Qualifications'.
Though the said clause also uses the word
'certificate' in conjunction with the words
'marksheet and degree', at the same time, it
qualifies the applicability of that Clause
itself
to
'Educational
Qualifications'.
Therefore, it is plain - under that Clause,
failure
to
enclose
'such'
self-attested
certificates/documents would result in the
application itself being rejected. Though
mandatory without an exception, the said
Clause
applies
qua
'Educational
Qualifications', only. By no process of
reasoning, it may ever be inferred, it would
apply or be extended to reservation, also.

26. Then, coming to Clause 11(18),
first, it clearly provides, no change of
category/sub-category may be made by a
candidate after the last date to file the original
(first) application, submitted through online
mode. To that also, there is no dispute or
quarrel between the parties. Therefore, as
noted above, the petitioner lost her right to
change her category, after the last date to
submit the application to appear at the
Preliminary Examination. However, as to
consequence,
only
in
the
event
of
'false/misleading information' being provided,
the candidature of such candidate may be
cancelled. Therefore, meaning would have to
be attributed to the words 'false' and
'misleading'.

27. Blacks Law Dictionary, Ninth
Edition
defines
the
words
'False'
&
'Misleading' as below:

"false, adj. (12c) 1. Untrue 2.
Deceit-ful; lying 3. Not genuine; inauthentic .
What is false can be so by intent, by accident,
or by mistake."

misleading, adj. (16c) (Of an
instruction,
direction,
etc.)
delusive;
calculated to be misunderstood. [Cases:
Fraud-13(1).}"

28. Clearly, used in conjunction - to
cause the legal effect of disqualification at an
open/public competitive examination, to a
person otherwise qualified to participate at
such examination. Since 'false/misleading
information'
must
itself
cause
that
disqualification, it must be such as may be
intended to obtain a result/benefit that the
informant i.e., the candidate must know from
before, he was not entitled to. Unless that
falsity is ascertained by the UPPSC and,
unless that is the test applied, it would include
within its sweep incomplete disclosures and
innocent errors of perception as to one's status,
without ever having the intent to take any
benefit, of the same. In the context of the
disqualification being set up against an
aspirant/candidate i.e., the petitioner, since she
did not file any certificate or document to
claim DFF reservation, we are disinclined to
give that wider meaning to the words 'false'
and 'misleading' to include therein unproven or
incomplete or wrong disclosures.

29. As to what may be construed as
'false', came to be considered, though in a
8 All. Pankhudi Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
323
different context arising under criminal
jurisdiction,
in
Ravinder
Singh
vs
Sukhbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 245.
Yet, the same is relevant to our purpose
since we are only looking to ascertain the
dictionary meaning of word 'false'. That
exercise has been undertaken by the
Supreme Court in the above noted decision.
Considering the meaning of word 'false', it
was observed as below:

"18. The dictionary meaning of
word "false" means that, which is in
essence incorrect, or purposefully untrue,
deceitful, etc. Thus, the word "false" is used
to cover only unlawful falsehood. It means
something that is dishonest, untrue and
deceitful, and implies an intention to
perpetrate some treachery or fraud. In
jurisprudence, the word "false" is used to
characterise a wrongful or criminal act,
done intentionally and knowingly, with
knowledge, actual or constructive. The
word "false" may also be used in a wide or
narrower sense. When used in its wider
sense, it means something that is untrue
whether or not stated intentionally or
knowingly, but when used in its narrower
sense, it may cover only such falsehoods,
which
are
intentional.
The
question
whether in a particular enactment, the
word "false" is used in a restricted sense or
a wider sense, depends upon the context in
which it is used.

19. In CST v. Sanjiv Fabrics
[(2010) 9 SCC 630 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
1439] , this Court, after relying upon
certain legal dictionaries, explained that
the word false describes an untruth,
coupled with wrong intention or an
intention to deceive. The Court further held
that in case of criminal prosecution, where
consequences are serious, findings of fact
must be recorded with respect to mens rea
in case of falsehood as a condition
precedent for imposing any punishment."
 (emphasis supplied)

30. Again as to the word 'mislead', in
another case arising under the criminal
jurisdiction, in Ram Chandra Bhagat vs
State of Jharkhand, (2013) 1 SCC 562,
the Supreme Court had the occasion to
consider the meaning to be given to the
word 'deceit'. In its concurring judgement,
Justice R.M. Lodha (as he then was)
reached a conclusion that any device or
false representation by which one man may
mislead another to his injury and fraudulent
misrepresentations would have practiced
deceit. Paragraphs 17 & 18 of the report
read as under:

"17. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary
(5th Edn.) explains "deceit" as follows:

"Deceit.?'"Deceit",
deceptio,
fraus, dolus, is a subtle, wily shift or
device, having no other name; hereto may
be drawn all manner of craft, subtilly,
guile, fraud, wilinesse, slight, cunning,
covin, collusion, practice, and offence used
to deceive another man by any means,
which hath none other proper or particular
name but offence'."

Black's
Law
Dictionary
(8th
Edn.) explains "deceit" thus:

"Deceit,
n.?(1)
The
act
of
intentionally giving a false impression

In The Law Lexicon by P.
Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edn., Reprint 2000),
"deceit" is described as follows:

"Deceit.?Fraud;
false
representation made with intent to deceive;
'Deceit, "deception of fraud" is a subtle,
wily shift or device, having no other name.
In this may be included all manner of craft,
subtlety, guile, fraud, wiliness, slight,
cunning, covin, collusion, practice and
offence used to deceive another may be by
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any means, which hath none other proper
or particular name but offence'."

18. "Deceit", in the law, has a
broad significance. Any device or false
representation by which one man misleads
another to his injury and fraudulent
misrepresentations by which one man
deceives another to the injury of the latter,
are deceit. Deceit is a false statement of
fact made by a person knowingly or
recklessly with intent that it shall be acted
upon by another who does act upon it and
thereby suffers an injury. It is always a
personal act and is intermediate when
compared with fraud. Deceit is sort of a
trick or contrivance to defraud another. It
is an attempt to deceive and includes any
declaration that misleads another or causes
him to believe what is false."

31. Clearly, and without any doubt, in
our context, 'false' and/or 'misleading'
information would imply a deliberate,
wrong statement made by the petitioner to
claim
benefit
as
a
DFF
candidate
knowingly
yet
wrongly.
By
merely
claiming that benefit without filling any
certificate or basis, left the claim made
incomplete or unsubstantiated. Such claim
may, at most, be described as wrong, yet
not false or misleading.

32. By not supplying or substantiating
the basis for her claim to DFF reservation
(in the first/original application), the
petitioner did not commit any positive
and/or complete act as may ever allow any
prudent person to reach a conclusion that
that incomplete information was itself
patently 'false/misleading', upon evaluating
the inherent or intrinsic worth of that
unsubstantiated
claim.
Per
se,
an
incomplete or unsubstantiated claim may
not involve element of 'false/misleading
information'. It would not render the
declaration
made
-
'false'
and/or
'misleading', on the face of it.

33. Then, the UPPSC did not conduct
any enquiry or verification exercise, to
adjudge the otherwise incomplete and/or
inaccurate claim made by the petitioner,
false
or
misleading.
Unless
any
false/misleading information was found to
have been furnished by the petitioner (to
claim reservation under the DFF category),
and unless that satisfaction were reached by
the UPPSC, on its own enquiry, it is not
possible and/or permissible to reach any
further conclusion that that declaration
made by the petitioner was either 'false'
and/or 'misleading', merely because the
petitioner chose not to substantiate it at the
stage of submitting her second application
(through offline mode).

34. Thus, the UPPSC has neither
discovered any inherent falsehood nor
dishonest nor deceitful nor misleading
conduct on part of the petitioner as may
have exposed her to the harsh consequence
of cancellation of her candidate under
Clause 11(18) of 'Necessary Information to
Applicants for Filling Their Applications
Through On-Line'.

35. Then, Clause 11(23) of 'Necessary
Information to Applicants for Filling Their
Applications
Through
On-Line'
also
specifies certain conditions on which a
candidature may be rejected/cancelled.
Those are:

"(i) submission of application on
form other than prescribed form;

(ii) date of birth being not
mentioned in the application;

(iii) mention of wrong date of
birth;

(iv) candidate being overage;
8 All. Pankhudi Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
325

(v) candidate being underage;

(vi) not fulfilling the minimum
educational qualifications;

(viii) applications received after
last date and;

(ix)
no
signature
on
the
advertisement form."

36. Thus, besides Clause 11(18) of
'Necessary Information to Applicants for
Filling Their Applications Through OnLine', the UPPSC had thus chosen to
specify
other
contingencies
and
circumstances in which the candidature of
the candidate may be cancelled/rejected,
out-rightly.
A
circumstance
of
incompleteness in the form with respect to
reservation sought not being one of those
conditions, it was not open to the UPPSC to
contend, such condition was a part of the
original Advertisement. The terms of the
Advertisement had to be seen upon the
plain language used therein. The terms of
the Advertisement
being
elaborate
-
covering various contingencies providing
for different consequences, it cannot be
accepted that the candidature of the
petitioner may have been cancelled for the
event not specified or stipulated as one that
may result in its cancellation. The language
of the Advertisement that is the law
between the parties, clearly works the other
way, i.e., to infer, different consequences
for different eventualities, with the harsh
consequence
of
cancellation
of
the
candidature being confined to pre-specified
contingencies only.

37. In that light, it may also be noted,
under
Clause
11(30)
of
'Necessary
Information to Applicants for Filling Their
Applications
Through
On-Line'
and
General Instruction no.3, UPPSC itself
contemplates, a candidate who may have
claimed reservation may be adjusted
against Unreserved (General) category at
the final selection only if such candidate
may not have availed reservation at the
stage
of
Preliminary/Mains
(Written)
Examination/Screening Examination. Thus,
though the petitioner had lost her self-right
to seek a change of category, yet, the
UPPSC retained to itself a right, to consider
her candidature, under the appropriate
category. In the present case, the petitioner
has not availed the DFF category at the
stage of Preliminary Examination. As noted
in the interim order itself, she qualified for
the Mains (Written) Examination as an
EWS category candidate but not as a DFF
candidate. Therefore, the UPPSC may
allow her to compete further, as an EWS
candidate.

38. As to the decisions relied upon by
respective learned counsel for the parties,
in the full Bench decision of this Court -
Gaurav Sharma vs State of U.P. & 2 Ors.
(supra), a question had been framed:

"A. Whether the candidature of
an OBC candidate is liable to be rejected
on the ground of the caste certificate
having been submitted after the last date
for submission of applications?"

39. While answering that question,
full Bench observed as under:

"Judging whether a particular
candidate is entitled to the benefits of
reservation or has rightly claimed as
falling in the said category is an essential
exercise liable to be undertaken. For the
purposes of undertaking this exercise the
selecting body must be in a position to
adjudge for itself whether a particular
candidate is entitled to the benefits and
exemptions as claimed. If this were not read
as being an inherent power in the selecting
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
body, the process of selection itself may be
completely derailed. While it is a true that
a caste certificate is only a recognition of
an existing status, as noted above, an OBC
candidate necessarily must establish the
twin conditions of belonging to a OBC
group recognised by the State and also that
he does not fall within the creamy layer.
This requirement is liable to be judged with
reference to a date prescribed in an
advertisement. The certificate of OBC (non
creamy layer) is issued with reference to
the financial condition of the holder or his
parents assessed over a period of three
years. The financial condition of a holder is
liable to change or fluctuate over a period
of time. Viewed in this light it cannot be
said that the requirement of submission of
such a certificate by a particular date is not
attracted to the case of an OBC candidate."

40. We do not find the dictum of the
full Bench to be offering the answer to the
question involved in the present case.

41. Insofar as the decisions of the
learned single-Judge relied upon by learned
senior counsel for UPSSC are concerned,
clearly, they do not appear to take note of
the second submission advanced by learned
counsel for petitioner, in the present case.
That we have considered above. Though
terms and conditions of the Advertisement
and even facts may have been similar, it
would be dangerous to adopt that reasoning
in the present case. Submissions advanced
in the present petition have remained
untested before the learned single Judge.
Thus, those decisions of the learned single
Judge may not persuade us.

42. Without making any observation
as to the correctness or otherwise of those
decisions of the learned single Judge, for
reason of different arguments advanced
and, upon consideration of those advanced
in the present case, we find, the petitioner
did not lose her eligibility to participate
further, pursuant to the Advertisement,
consequent to her not filing prescribed
certificate to claim DFF reservation.

43. The stipulation allowing for
rejection of the candidature in the event of
an incomplete claim of reservation was first
introduced
vide
Notification
dated
24.3.2023. It reads as below:

"अभ्यथी द्वारा प्रश्नगत चयन हेतु प्रारंत्रभक परीक्षा के
ऑनलाइन आवेदन में श्रेणी/उपश्रेणी/अहताा अत्रद के सम्बन्ध में त्रकये
गए दावे के समथान में अपने समस्त अत्रभलेख मुख्या परीक्षा के
आवेदन के साथ अवश्य संलग्न करें अन्यथा उनका अभ्यथान स्वतः
त्रनरस्त मन जयगा "

44. Undisputedly, that condition was
changed not only mid-way but after
declaration of the result of the Preliminary
Examination.

45. We are unable to accept the
objection being raised by the learned senior
counsel for the UPPSC on the strength of
Notification dated 24.3.2023. The effect of
Notification is not to improve the standard
of the selection. It is not to pick the best
over the lesser in order of merit. It seeks to
completely exclude the petitioner from the
zone of consideration, midway through the
selection process.