Objective Of Public Examinations Can't Be Construed To Be So Restrictive As To Be Cruel To Candidates: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the object of a public examination cannot be construed in such a restrictive manner which would make it cruel to the candidates. 

A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:

The object of a public examination cannot by any means be construed to be so restrictive as to be cruel on the candidates, particularly for brilliant people like the petitioner, who has already cleared the preliminary and mains in the tough banking examination concerned. The endeavour of the authorities ought to be encourage such people and not to shut them out on trivial issues.

The Court was dealing with the case of the petitioner who was from Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, where she was facing poor internet connectivity, and had applied to take the exam for the position of probationary officer/management trainee of banks.

It was submitted by the petitioner that she had filled up her credentials and the application form within the stipulated time, with the help of her father from a cyber cafe.

It was stated that even though she had passed the prelims and mains exams when the time came for the interview, certain discrepancies regarding her date of birth in the documents submitted by her had been detected.

It was stated that the banks left the petitioner's candidature in the hands of the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) which was the common online platform conducting the said examinations.

It was stated that there was a discrepancy between the month of birth of the petitioner between her Aadhaar/PAN card and her birth certificate.

However, it was stated that since the age of eligibility was between 20-30 years, and the petitioner was born in the year 2000, she would be eligible to sit for the interview. 

Counsel for the respondent IBPS argued that if the petitioner had all the documents at her disposal, she could have disclosed her correct date of birth as pointed out in her school certificates as well as date of birth.

It was further pointed out that as per the eligibility criteria, all particulars mentioned in the online application, including the date of birth of the candidate, will be considered as final and no challenge/modification will be allowed after submission of the online application form.

Court noted that as held by the Apex Court, in cases where the candidate had cleared all stages successfully, candidature could not be cancelled for trivial omissions or errors.

It stated that the petitioner was hailing from the interior parts of the state where proper internet facilities were not available. 

One can very well appreciate the impediments and handicaps under which such a person has uploaded the online application and furnished due details and credentials, which was done through a cyber café, since the petitioner did not have the means to do the uploading from her own data pack. Seen in such context, the error committed by the petitioner was indeed trivial, the Court said.

It was further held that the object of such examinations for the banking and other public sectors was intended to reach every nook and corner of the country and not so advantaged large cities or towns.

Court stated that the petitioner was not seeking to modify her date of birth but had contended that even if either of the dates of birth were taken to be correct, she would still be eligible to sit for the interview. 

Accordingly, in holding that the scope of public examinations cannot be narrowed to become cruel, especially for brilliant candidates like the petitioner, the Court directed the IBPS to inform the banks that the petitioner was eligible to participate in the interview process.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 77

Case: Reshmi Bhagat Vs. State of West Bengal and others

Case No: WPA No. 5442 of 2024

Click here to read order