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 cleared all stages of the selection process.

ORDER : – With consent finally heard.

2. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to consider her candidature for the post of Office Assistant (Multi purpose) and to issue appointment order in her favour in light of offer letter dated 3-3-2021 for selection to the said post.

3. As per the petitioner, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) issued advertisement for recruitment of officers and Office Assistant (Multi purpose) in Regional Rural Banks including the respondent Bank. Petitioner duly registered herself and submitted the online form on 13-7-2020 for the post of Office Assistant (Multi purpose) under OBC category. On account of typographical mistake, the petitioner mentioned her date of birth as 2-11-1991 instead of 4-11-1991. Petitioner then appeared in the written examination and successfully cleared the same and offer letter dated 3-3-2021 was issued by the respondent Bank in her favour. The petitioner was called to report at head office of the respondent Bank on 18-3-2021 for documents verification.

4. As directed, the petitioner appeared before the head office of the respondent Bank on 18-3-2021 and furnished her original documents. However, the respondent Bank rejected the candidature and selection of the petitioner on the ground that she had filled incorrect date of birth in her application form. The petitioner preferred a representation before the respondent Bank seeking permission to make necessary correction in her date of birth in the application form, but no decision upon the same was taken hence she has approached this Court.

5. Reply has been filed by the respondent submitting that when the petitioner was called for document verification, her actual date of birth did not match with the date of birth given by her in the application form, hence, her candidature and selection was rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not gained by filling an incorrect date of her birth in her application form. Taking both the dates into account the petitioner would still be eligible for recruitment. The incorrect date mentioned in the application form by her was only a typographical mistake. The petitioner has been duly selected on merits and offer letter has been issued in her favour. The mistake on her part was inadvertent and trivial and ought to have been condoned by the respondent and appointment order ought to have been issued in her favour.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the date of birth as mentioned by the petitioner in her application form was incorrect, the same having been discovered at the time of inspection of her original documents, her candidature has rightly been rejected.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The question for determination in this petition is whether candidature of the petitioner ought to have been cancelled on ground of typographical error in her date of birth in her online application after she had cleared the written test and after interview offer letter had been issued in her favour.

9. A candidate applying for a Government job should fill up the application form carefully. The candidate cannot claim any vested right of rectification of errors in application. When material discrepancy is noticed in the application form, the candidature may be cancelled even after the application has been processed and candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. But when a candidate has participated in the selection process and has cleared all the stages successfully, candidature should not be cancelled without careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse. The same cannot be done for minor omissions or errors.

10. The difference between the actual date of birth of the petitioner and the date filled by her in the application form was only of two days. The petitioner has not derive