'Candidature Can't Be Cancelled For Trivial Errors' : Supreme Court Gives Relief To Police Aspirant Who Gave Wrong Date Of Birth

Directing the respondent-authorities to treat the appellant as a candidate who 'passed' the selection process, considering the birth date mentioned in his Class 10^th certificate, a Division Bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan remarked that the State was not justified in making “a mountain out of this molehill”.

It added that if the appellant was not otherwise disqualified, his case was to be considered and necessary appointment letter issued. In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench further directed that in the event of there being no vacancy, appointment letter ought to be issued to the appellant in special facts of the case.

It underlined that the directions were being passed and judgment rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

The factual matrix of the case was such that the appellant, belonging to downtrodden section of the society, had applied for the post of Police Constable under the reserved category. Though he satisfied the eligibility criteria and passed all stages of the selection process successfully, he was not ultimately selected.

The only reason behind the non-selection was that, while in the application form uploaded online, the appellant's date of birth was shown as December 8, 1997, in the school mark sheet, it was reflected as December 18, 1997.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed a representation. On receiving no response, he approached the Patna High Court, contending that to fill the online application form, he had gone from his remote village to a nearby town, where with the assistance of person running a Cyber cafe, he was ultimately able to fill the form. The appellant pled that the error was inadvertent, and he derived no benefit from incorrect mentioning of the date of birth, as either way he fulfilled the eligibility criteria and the age requirement.

The respondent-authorities opposed the appellant's plea, contending that there was a clear stipulation in the advertisement for selection that candidates should correctly mention their date of birth as per Class 10^th certificate. If any discrepancy was found, the candidature was liable to be cancelled and legal action was to be taken.

As per the respondents, the advertisement also mentioned a method to make corrections, but the appellant did not avail that facility.

A Single Judge of the High Court did not grant relief to the appellant, noting that incorrect information was provided. In an LPA, Division Bench of the court confirmed the Single Judge's order, additionally recording that the appellant had not sought quashing of the result.

In this backdrop, the appellant had approached the Supreme Court.

Analyzing the facts and contentions, the Bench observed that the appellant had participated in the selection process and cleared all stages. He had made the error inadvertently, and was oblivious of it until he failed the selection process.

Citing the court's earlier decisions in Divya v. Union of India & Ors. (2023) and Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. (2016), the Bench reiterated that candidatures can only be cancelled after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial errors or omissions.

“The exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the reason that law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle is recognized in the legal maxim - De minimis non curat lex”.

It was opined that the error made in the present case was trivial and could not have formed the basis for rejection of the appellant's candidature. Consequently, the cancellation was set aside.

Refusing to penalize the appellant for an “insignificant error” which in fact had no bearing on the “ultimate result”, the Bench said,

“Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression.”

Noting that the State itself did not consider the error to be grave, as it had not initiated any criminal action against the appellant, the Bench said,

“We are not impressed with the argument of the State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or mis-leading information.”

So far as the State contended that the appellant had also signed a printed form, carrying the date of birth given by him, the Bench accepted the appellant's explanation that the form was mechanically signed while he was oblivious of the mistake made in the online version.

On the High Court's observation that the appellant had not sought quashing of the result declared over web, the Bench said,

“A reading of the prayer clause in the writ petition indicates that the appellant did pray for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature treating his date of birth as 18.12.1997 and also sought for a direction for issuance of an appointment letter.”

While setting aside the High Court's judgment, it was observed that a Writ Court has power to mold relief and justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities.

Counsel for Appellant: Advocate Shaswati Parhi

Counsel for Respondent(s): Advocate Azmat Hayat Amanullah

Case Title: Vashist Narayan Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1/2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1