The Bench comprising Justices Justice K.V. Viswanathan and J.K. Maheshwari characterised the rejection of the man’s form for the job of a police constable on a minor error as making a mountain out of a molehill.
—
ON Tuesday, the Supreme Court came to the rescue of a man belonging to a downtrodden segment of society who was declared failed because in the application form uploaded online, instead of putting his date of birth (DOB) as December 8, 1997, he had put December 18, 1997 as his DOB.
Writing the judgment for the Bench, which also comprised Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice K.V. Viswanathan held that the error in the application form was trivial and did not play any part in the selection process. The Bench added that the State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill.
What was the case about?
Vashist Narayan Kumar, the petitioner, is a resident of Deodha, a small village in the Nawada district of Bihar. He had qualified for the written examination and the physical eligibility test conducted by the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) in 2017.
He went to a cybercafé in Pakribarawan— a nearby town. With the assistance of a person running the cybercafé, he filled in his form and uploaded it online.
His case was that, while filling up the form, by an inadvertent error, the date of birth had been recorded as “08.12.1997” instead of “18.12.1997”.
Kumar argued that he derived no benefit from it as either way he fulfilled the eligibility criteria and the age requirement. He challenged the rejection of his candidature unsuccessfully before a single judge as well as a division Bench of the Patna High Court.
The state government vehemently opposed the petition. It was their stand that the advertisement had clearly stipulated that candidates should correctly mention their date of birth, as per their 10th board certificate.
They argued that the advertisement also clearly stated that candidates should read instructions carefully and if any information is found false or wrong, then the application form would be cancelled and legal action will be initiated against providers of false information.
Unimpressed with the stand taken by the state government, the Bench observed that the error was not so grave as to constitute wrong or misleading information.
The Bench also observed that the state government had not resorted to any action under criminal law, clearly implying that even they did not consider this error as having fallen foul of the advertisement.
“We do not think that the appellant could be penalised for this insignificant error which made no difference to the ultimate result. Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent, do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression,” the Bench held.
The Bench further held that the petitioner had participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully.
The error in the application, the Bench added, was trivial and did not play any part in the selection process.
“Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafé 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 Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed,” the Bench underscored.
The Bench also highlighted that though technology is a great enabler, a digital divide also exists in India.
Eventually, it quashed the high court’s Order and directed to treat the petitioner as having ‘passed’ in the selection process held under the advertisement issued by the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Patna.
The Bench made it clear that if there is no vacancy, an appointment letter will still have to be issued on the special facts of the case.
“We make the said direction, in the 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 directed.
