Harish Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. S. B. K. Manglam, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Zaki Haider, learned Advocate for the Bihar Public Service Commission. The State is represented through Mr. Prateek, learned Advocate.

2. The petitioner, one of the applicant for appointment to the post of Teacher for Class-I-V in terms with Advertisement No. 26 of 2023, has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to consider her candidature by treating her educational qualification as D.El.ED instead of B.Ed. The petitioner also sought a direction to prepare the revised merit list of the petitioner on the basis of marks obtained by her in the BPSC TRE-1 Examination Result published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) for appointment to the aforenoted post under the EBC (Female) category treating her as a candidate, who has participated and passed in the selection process held in terms with the aforenoted advertisement.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the short facts, as narrated in the writ petition, has contended that the petitioner cannot be denied appointment for the aforesaid post simply on the ground that she had inadvertently mentioned in her qualification as B.Ed. instead of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.), as one of the column in the Online application form filled by her, although at other place in the said Online form she has already mentioned her qualification D.El.Ed. holder, besides she has also uploaded the Diploma in Elementary Education certificate and her marks sheet issued by the Bihar School Examination Board along with her Online application form.

4. Referring to the captioned Advertisement No. 26 of 2023, it is submitted that Clause-4(A) of the Advertisement clearly stipulates that the candidate, inter alia, who has the qualification of Graduation with Diploma in Elementary Education or 50% marks with Graduate and B.Ed. Degree holder are qualified to be appointed against the post of Teacher of Class-1 to V. Thus, even otherwise, the petitioner was eligible to be considered for her appointment. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also filed an application along with the affidavit for rectification of the mistake, the copies of which have also been placed on record, as Annexures P/11 and P/12, but to no avail.

5. Heavy reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1 [: 2024 (1) BLJ 180 (SC)]. It is submitted that the Apex Court clearly emphasized that if error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process, the State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. The petitioner should not be penalised for this insignificant error, which made no difference to the ultimate result; all the more, in a case where the petitioner has successfully passed the examination and chased the cut off marks. It is specifically contended that under the Extremely Backward Class (Female) category, the cut off marks was prescribed as 44, however, the petitioner has secured 45 marks.

6. Mr. Zaki Haider, learned Advocate for the Commission submitted with all vehemence that for the apparent mistake committed by the petitioner, the Commission is not responsible. Moreover, time and again, notices were issued and objections were invited to make necessary correction but the same has not been done by the petitioner. The entire recruitment process of TRE-1 to TRE-3 have been completed and subsequently appointment have also been made and thus any interference or order passed in this case would disturb the entire process, which has already been set at rest.

7. Referring to the counter, he further submits that Clause 7 (Kha) of the Advertisement clearly stipulates that the examination will be conducted by the Commission considering