IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

(APPELLATE SIDE)

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Smita Das De

WPA 27956 of 2025

Ayan Paul

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the petitioner : Ms. Tanuka Basu,

: Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty,

: Ms. S. Fasih,

Mr. Partho Proteem Das.

For the Respondent No.1-4 : Mr. Imran Siddhiqui,

: Mr. Aritra Shankar Roy.

Heard on : 09/12/2025 Judgment on : 09/12/2025

Smita Das De, J.:-

1. The instant writ petition challenges inter alia, the order dated

18.11.2025 wherein the candidature of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that the Domicile District was found to be mismatched with the online application form submitted by the

petitioner.

2. Apropo the facts of the instant case is that, the petitioner applied for

the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs pursuant to a Notification dated

05.09.2024.

3. The application was submitted correctly by mentioning the permanent and correspondence addresses as ‘North 24 Parganas’. The petitioner had successfully cleared all the stages including PET and PST and was thereafter shortlisted on merit accordingly.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the stage of verification of the documents, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by an order 18.11.2025 on the sole ground of mismatch of ‘District of Domicile’ with the online application form submitted by the petitioner which is reproduced below:-

“You have failed to established the name of the district of domicile as mentioned in online application and found variation.”

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner never had any mala fide intention to mislead and take any advantage of the situation since the identity of domicile of the eligibility remains undisputed. The error was committed solely based on a clerical and technical issue and the same was uploaded inadvertently as ‘Kolkata’

instead of ‘North 24 Parganas’.

6. It is also submitted that the recruitment process shall be held on

09.12.2025 and shall have no further occasion to agitate the same before the authority concerned for redressal.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2024) 11 SCC 785 specially paragraphs Nos. 15 and 19 which is reproduced below:-

“15. Recently this Bench in Divya vs. Union of India & Ors., while declining relief to candidates who acquired eligibility after the date mentioned in the notification carved out a narrow exception. There, the judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors., a case very similar to the facts of the present case, was noted. In Ajai Kumar Mishra (supra), Indira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in para

9 stated as under:-

9. It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/ or mis- representation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors.” (emphasis supplied)

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.

19. In this case, the appellant has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The 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. Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafe, got the better of the appellant. He omitted to notice the error and even failed to avail the