SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Vashist Narayan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 12230 of 2023
Decided On : 02-01-2024
Constitution of India – Articles 32/226 and 142 – Appointment – Error committed in application form – Appellant has participated in selection process and cleared all stages successfully – OBC certificate uploaded by candidate was not as per format as mentioned in advertisement – Error in application is trivial which did not play any part in selection process – State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill – There was no trick or device resorted to by appellant – It is a trivial error which appears to be a genuine and bona fide mistake – It will be unjust to penalise appellant for the same – Writ Court has power to mould relief – Justice cannot be forsaken on alter of technicalities – Judgment of Division Bench of Patna High Court set aside and respondent-State directed to treat appellant as a candidate who has “passed”, in selection process – If appellant is otherwise not disqualified, case of appellant be considered and necessary appointment letter issued – In the event of there being no vacancy, appointment letter will still have to be issued on special facts of this case – Such direction is made in exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India. (Paras 19, 20, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Appellant aspired to become a Police Constable and had applied for said post under reserved category. Question that arises for consideration is whether error committed in application form, which was uploaded is a material error or a trivial error and was State justified in declaring appellant as having failed on account of same?
Findings of Court:
OBC certificate uploaded by the candidate was not as per format as mentioned in advertisement and additionally on the ground that the date of issuance of the certificate was wrongly mentioned in the online application.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Vashist Narayan Kumar (the appellant) hails from a small village named Dheodha in Bihar. He belongs to the downtrodden segment of the society. He aspired to become a Police Constable and had applied for the said post under the reserved category. Having possessed the eligibility criteria of being an intermediate (10+2 pass), he also cleared the written examination and the Physical Eligibility Test.
3. The appellant submitted his educational certificates/mark sheet as well as his caste certificate for document verification. On 11.06.2018, the final results reflected him as having failed. The only reason was that, while in the application form uploaded online, his date of birth was shown as 08.12.1997, in the school mark sheet, his date of birth was reflected as 18.12.1997.
4. Distraught, the appellant represented and thereafter having failed to receive any response, filed a writ petition before the High Court. His explanation was simple and straight forward. He stated in his writ petition that, after noticing the advertisement issued by the Central Selection Board on 29.07.2017, he from his remote village went to the Cyber café at Pakribarawan - a nearby town. With the assistance of a person running the Cyber café, he filled in his form and uploaded it online and he received application No. 7236126 indicating thereby that the online application had been duly filled. His case was that, while filling up the form, by an inadvertent error, the date of birth had got recorded as “08.12.1997” instead of “18.12.1997.” He derived no benefit from it as either way he fulfilled the eligibility criteria and the age requirement. He prayed for the relief in the nature of a mandamus to the respondents to consider his claim for selection and direct them to issue an appointment letter treating the date of birth as 18.12.1997, as reflected in his educational certificates.
5. The respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition. It was their stand that the advertisement had clearly stipulated that candidates should correctly mention their date of birth according to their 10th board certificate; that if any discrepancy was found while matching the information, the candidature would be cancelled; that the candidate should read the instructions carefully and if any information is found false or wrong, then the application form would be cancelled and legal action will also be taken. It was further averred that the advertisement also mentioned the method of making corrections and that the appellant never availed that facility.
6. They contended that out of 9900 vacancies advertised, 9839 candidates were declared successful. They submitted that 61 vacancies remained unfilled due to non-availability of suitable Gorkha candidates. They prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
7. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the clauses in the advertisement, including the clause providing for correction, held that since incorrect information was provided, no relief could be given. The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal to the Division Bench, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The Division Bench, while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, additionally recorded a finding that the appellant had not sought for quashing of the result, as declared on 11.06.2018, on the website.
8. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in this Appeal.
9. We have heard Ms. Shaswati Parhi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, learned counsel for the State. Learned counsels have reiterated their respective contentions as advanced in the Courts below. They have also relied on the judgments of this Court and of some High Courts, in support of their respective propositions. Learned counsels have also filed comprehensive written submissions.
Question for Consideration
10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the error committed in the application form, which wa
Writ Court has power to mould relief – Justice cannot be forsaken on alter of technicalities.
Cancellation of candidature due to minor errors should be carefully scrutinized and should not be done without considering the gravity of the lapse, especially when the candidate has successfully cle....
Inadvertent errors in applications do not constitute misrepresentation justifying rejection, supporting fair opportunity in selection.
In recruitment processes, trivial errors in application, like incorrect date of birth while meeting eligibility, do not necessarily preclude participation unless the selection process is finalized.
A candidate's clerical mistakes in an application form cannot be corrected post-submission if they affect eligibility, reaffirming that applicants must verify information carefully.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.