Gaurav Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mrigraj Singh for the respondent. The petitioner has come up praying that his marks obtained were wrongly filled up in the application form as 972 whereas he has obtained 1019 marks.

Learned counsel contends that this was a human error and which he attributes to the computer operator.

The digits and the numbers which have been reflected hereinabove do not even prima facie indicate that it is a human error or an inadvertent clerical mistake.

Had there been any minor discrepancy, it could have been treated to be a human error but a person filling up a form who has obtained 1019 marks and describing it as 972 cannot be treated to be a mere human error.

An error is described as an attribute of something incorrect done through ignorance or inadvertence. Inadvertence is inattentiveness or failure to observe. It is doing something carelessly or heedlessly but unintentionally. It is also a mistake and a mistake is a misconception or a misapprehension. A human error is one that can be attributed to the quality or nature belonging to a man. A man can be forgetful and careless and may act upon unattentively having failed to observe anything. Such an error can be described to be a human error.

The instant case is not of a human error but of a blunder. A blunder is a gross mistake which can be described as an error due to stupidity or extreme carelessness reflecting irresponsibility. Additionally an unaccountable demeanour when one is supposed to be careful is also a blunder. In the aforesaid circumstances, this sort of mistake, which is of a higher order, cannot be considered to be a human error, even though blunders are also committed by humans. A blunder is something which is not expected of a man of common prudence, whereas a mistake that is bona fide, like just missing a digit or the like due to inadvertence, can be a pardonable cause as a human error. It is a thoughtless act which attribute cannot be equated with a common mistake or error.

For the purpose of correcting any such errors as presently involved, in an application form, it is needless to observe that the mentioning of such widely inconsistent figures of the marks obtained is an act which cannot be said to be unintentional. The attitude of a careless approach is intentional carelessness. In the instant case, the substantially altogether different marks indicate the same. Even if it is unintentional, such a blunder cannot be condoned.

Filling up of an application form for the appointment of a Part-Time Instructor, who has to perform as a teacher is a responsible act. If such a candidate behaves in such a carelessly inappropriate way, so as not to fill up his/her application form correctly, then there is little hope from such a candidate that he or she will be able to impart education in the desired manner.

The responsibility of the person of filling up an application form does not get diluted on the shoulders of the computer operator, inasmuch as, if such a mistake exists, the same would be available on record as the applicants generally retain a hard copy of such an application form. If such a mistake has occurred, it should be corrected immediately and not after several months when the counselling is to take place. These factors have also to be taken into account while assessing the mistake to be a human error. The petitioner cannot be given a luxurious time lag to cover up the lapses that are so apparent as indicated above, and for which no effort for correction was ever made. The exercise of due diligence Is, therefore, warranted and no laxity in the same should be condoned.

In the circumstances, the judgment in the case of Writ Petition No. 12188 of 2013, Kumari Jyoti Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , decided on 6.3.2013, cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in the present case on the peculiar facts involved herein that are clearly distinguishable. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.