NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said the State is not justified in cancelling selection of a candidate to public employment on the ground of trivial error in filling up online application form as law does not concern itself with trifles.
A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and K V Vishwanathan said the court cannot turn a Nelsons eye to the ground realities that existed and the state cannot was not justified in making a mountain out of the molehill.
The court said appellant Vashist Narayan Kumar cannot be penalised for writing wrong date of birth in recruitment to the post of Bihar police constable.
Appellant Kumar, who hails from a small village named Dheodha in Bihar, committed an inadvertent error while recording his date of birth (DoB) in an online application for the recruitment of a police constable.
In 2017, he filled the online application with assistance from a person running a cyber caf at Pakribarawan - a nearby town. On June 11, 2018, the final results reflected Kumar having failed the recruitment process.
Kumar, 26, who ran from pillar to post to seek relief, also failed to impress the Patna High Court's single and division bench.
On January 2, 2024, the bench said justice cannot be forsaken on the alter of technicalities, as it directed the Bihar government to treat Kumar as a candidate who has passed, in the selection process held under the advertisement issued in 2017 by the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Patna with the date of birth as December 18, 1997.
He wrongly entered his date of birth as December 08, 1997.
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, the bench said.
"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 corrective mechanism offered. In the instant case, we cannot turn a Nelsons eye to the ground realities that existed, the bench said.
The bench said it is a trivial error which appears to be a genuine and bona fide mistake.
"It will be unjust to penalise the appellant for the same," the court said.
The court also noted Kumar derived no benefit from it either way, as he fulfilled the eligibility criteria and the age requirement.
It said considering the background in which the error occurred, the court was inclined to set aside the cancellation.
The apex court said it is not impressed with the finding of the division bench that there was no prayer seeking quashing of the results declared over the web.
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. A Writ Court has the power to mould the relief. Justice cannot be forsaken on the alter of technicalities," the bench said. justice Viswanathan.
In the event of there being no vacancy, appointment letter will still have to be issued on the special facts of this case. We make the said direction, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We further direct that the State will be at liberty in that event to adjust the vacancy in the next recruitment that they may resort to in the coming years, the bench said, ordering compliance with its order be made within a period of four weeks.
