On 16th September, the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied relief to a candidate who lost his chance in the judicial recruitment process because of a single mistake in his application form. The case involved Advocate Pradeep Kumar, who had applied for the position of Additional District & Sessions Judge under the Haryana Superior Judicial Service. While filling out the form, he mistakenly declared that he had more than one wife by ticking the option “yes” instead of “no.”

The recruitment notification was very clear. It stated that any candidate having more than one spouse would be ineligible to apply for the district judiciary service. The form provided two columns — “yes” and “no” — and candidates were expected to carefully mark the correct option. In this case, Kumar’s error of marking “yes” led to the outright rejection of his candidature.

Feeling wronged, he approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking relief against the rejection. The matter was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry. The bench, however, was not convinced by his explanation. The Chief Justice made a sharp remark during the proceedings:
“You yourself state that you have two wives. How do they know whether you have one wife or two wives or three wives? It is for you to declare. If you declare it wrongly, then what is their fault in cancelling your candidature?”

The petitioner argued that the mistake was inadvertent and unintentional. His counsel submitted that the examination was scheduled for 19th September, which meant that sufficient time was still available to correct the error before the process moved further. Despite this plea, the Court pointed to the recruitment notification, which clearly mentioned that no request for correction or modification in the form would be entertained at a later stage. According to the rules, candidates themselves carried the responsibility for any errors they made in their applications.

The bench went a step further to underline the seriousness of the declaration. They pointed out that once a candidate makes such a statement, the onus lies on him to prove otherwise. The Court asked:
“You will have to give proof that you don’t have two wives. How do you do that?”

Kumar also argued that since he had provided the name of his wife in the application, it should naturally be presumed that he had only one spouse. However, the Court refused to accept this reasoning, observing that the written declaration in the form carried more weight than assumptions or explanations.

The judges then delivered their final view in strong words. The High Court stated:
“A candidate has to be extremely careful and vigilant while filing his application form, and the slightest of mistakes can entail cancellation of his candidature. In competitive exams, it is extremely important to adhere to the timelines and no process can be stalled or delayed due to an inadvertent mistake of any candidate…In view of the above and the law laid down by the apex court… this Court cannot help the petitioner and the present petition stands dismissed.”

With this observation, the petition was dismissed. The decision reinforced the importance of absolute accuracy and vigilance while applying for competitive examinations, particularly for posts as sensitive and prestigious as the judiciary.