VASHIST NARAYAN KUMARversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

                     [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 2
                                  Case Details

                         Vashist Narayan Kumar
                                        v.
                        The State of Bihar & Ors.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2024)
                                02 January 2024
           [J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether an error committed in the application form, which was
       uploaded is a material error or a trivial error and was the State
       justified in declaring the appellant as having failed on account of
       the same.

                                   Headnotes
       Service Law – Recruitment – Inadvertent error in application
       form – Final result reflected failed – Appellant applied for the
       post of Police Constable – He cleared the written exam and
       the Physical Eligibility Test – However, the final result reflected
       him as failed – The only reason was that the application form
       uploaded online, appellant’s date of birth was shown as
       08.12.1997, in the school mark sheet, his date of birth was
       reflected as 18.12.1997 – Propriety:
       Held: The appellant’s application uploaded from the cyber café did
       mention the date of birth as 08.12.1997, while his date of birth as
       recorded in the educational certificate was 18.12.1997 – It is also
       undisputed that it is the appellant who produced the educational
       certificates – He was oblivious of the error that had crept into his
       application form – On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
       case, it cannot be said that the error was so grave as to constitute
       wrong or mis-leading information – There is an exception for trivial
       errors or omissions as law does concern itself with trifles – This
       principle is recognized in the legal maxim-De minimis non curat
       lex – Also, admittedly the appellant derived no advantage as even
       if either of the dates were taken, he was eligible; the error also had
       no bearing on the selection process – Considering the background
       in which the error occurred, the cancellation is set aside and the
       respondent-State is directed to treat the appellant as a candidate
       who has ‘passed’ in the selection process. [Paras 11,12,15, 25, 26]

* Author
2                                                           [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                 DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS



                List of Citations and Other References
          Yogesh Kumar and Others vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi
          and Others, [2003] 2 SCR 662 : (2003) 3 SCC 548 –
          distinguished.
          Divya vs. Union of India & Ors., 2023 INSC 900 : 2023
          (13) SCALE 730; Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union of India &
          Ors., C.A. No. 6983 of 2021 decided by the Supreme
          Court – referred to.
          Rohit Kumar and Another vs. Union of India and
          Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1219; Pradeep Kumar
          vs. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del
          239 – distinguished.
          Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors., [2016] SCC
          OnLine Del 6563; Arkshit Kapoor vs. Union of India,
          2017 SCC OnLine Del 10154; Anuj Pratap Singh vs.
          Union Public Service Commission, 2018 SCC OnLine
          Del 10982; K. Sangeetha vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service
          Commission (2018) SCC OnLine Mad 5075; Shubham
          Tushir vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9831;
          Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs. Shubham Tushir,
          LPA No. 237 of 2020; Poonam Pal vs. M.P. Gramin
          Bank, (2022) SCC OnLine MP 2921; Pankaj Paswan
          vs. State of Bihar Anr., 2015 SCC On Line Patna 8739
          – referred to.

                               List of Acts
     Constitution of India – Article 142.

                            List of Keywords
     Service Law; Recruitment; Application form; Inadvertent error;
     De minimis non curat lex.

          Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and
                            Appearances

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1 of 2024.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2022 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Patna in LPA No.1271 of 2019.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                             3

     VASHIST NARAYAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.


     Appearances:
     Shivam Singh, Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Gopal Singh, Advs. for the
     Appellant.
     Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Tirupati Gaurav Shahi, Advs. for the
     Respondents.

                Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court
                                 Judgment

     K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.   Leave granted.
2.   Vashist Narayan Kumar (the appellant) hails from a small village
     named Dheodha in Bihar. He belongs to the downtrodden segment of
     the society. He aspired to become a Police Constable and had applied
     for the said post under the reserved category. Having possessed
     the eligibility criteria of being an intermediate (10+2 pass), he also
     cleared the written examination and the Physical Eligibility Test.
3.   The appellant submitted his educational certificates/mark sheet as
     well as his caste certificate for document verification. On 11.06.2018,
     the final results reflected him as having failed. The only reason was
     that, while in the application form uploaded online, his date of birth
     was shown as 08.12.1997, in the school mark sheet, his date of
     birth was reflected as 18.12.1997.
4.   Distraught, the appellant represented and thereafter having failed to
     receive any response, filed a writ petition before the High Court. His
     explanation was simple and straight forward. He stated in his writ
     petition that, after noticing the advertisement issued by the Central
     Selection Board on 29.07.2017, he from his remote village went to the
     Cyber café at Pakribarawan - a nearby town. With the assistance of
     a person running the Cyber café, he filled in his form and uploaded
     it online and he received application No. 7236126 indicating thereby
     that the online application had been duly filled. His case was that,
     while filling up the form, by an inadvertent error, the date of birth had
     got recorded as “08.12.1997” instead of “18.12.1997”. He derived
     no benefit from it as either way he fulfilled the eligibility criteria and
     the age requirement. He prayed for the relief in the nature of a
4                                                          [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                 DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS


     mandamus to the respondents to consider his claim for selection
     and direct them to issue an appointment letter treating the date of
     birth as 18.12.1997, as reflected in his educational certificates.
5.   The respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition. It was their
     stand that the advertisement had clearly stipulated that candidates
     should correctly mention their date of birth according to their 10th
     board certificate; that if any discrepancy was found while matching the
     information, the candidature would be cancelled; that the candidate
     should read the instructions carefully and if any information is
     found false or wrong, then the application form would be cancelled
     and legal action will also be taken. It was further averred that the
     advertisement also mentioned the method of making corrections and
     that the appellant never availed that facility.
6.   They contended that out of 9900 vacancies advertised, 9839
     candidates were declared successful. They submitted that 61
     vacancies remained unfilled due to non-availability of suitable Gorkha
     candidates. They prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
7.   The learned Single Judge, after referring to the clauses in the
     advertisement, including the clause providing for correction, held that
     since incorrect information was provided, no relief could be given. The
     appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal to the Division Bench, which
     has been dismissed by the impugned order. The Division Bench,
     while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, additionally
     recorded a finding that the appellant had not sought for quashing of
     the result, as declared on 11.06.2018, on the website.
8.   Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in this Appeal.
9.   We have heard Ms. Shaswati Parhi, learned counsel for the appellant
     and Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, learned counsel for the State.
     Learned counsels have reiterated their respective contentions as
     advanced in the Courts below. They have also relied on the judgments
     of this Court and of some High Courts, in support of their respective
     propositions. Learned counsels have also filed comprehensive written
     submissions.
     Question for Consideration
10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the error
    committed in the application form, which was uploaded is a material
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                            5

     VASHIST NARAYAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.


     error or a trivial error and was the State justified in declaring the
     appellant as having failed on account of the same?
     Discussion
11. Admittedly, the appellant derived no advantage as even if either
    of the dates were taken, he was eligible; the error also had no
    bearing on the selection and the appellant himself being oblivious
    of the error produced the educational certificates which reflected his
    correct date of birth.
12. The facts are undisputed. The appellant’s application uploaded
    from the cyber café did mention the date of birth as 08.12.1997
    while his date of birth as recorded in the educational certificate
    was 18.12.1997. It is also undisputed that it is the appellant who
    produced the educational certificates. He was oblivious of the error
    that had crept into his application form. It is also undisputed that
    the advertisement had all the clauses setting out that in case the
    information given by the candidates is wrong or misleading, the
    application form was to be rejected and necessary criminal action
    was also to be taken. It also had a clause that the candidates
    had to fill the correct date of birth, according to their 10th board
    certificate. The clause further stated that candidates will fill their
    name, father’s name, address etc. correctly in the application form. It
    states that any discrepancy, if found, while checking the documents,
    the candidature of the candidate will stand cancelled. There was
    also a clause providing for correction of wrong/erroneously filled
    application forms, which stated that the errors can be corrected once
    by re-depositing the application fee and filling a new application. It
    also provided that those filling the application on the last date could
    correct the application till the following day.
13. Equally undisputed is the fact that after filling out the application, the
    appellant cleared the written examination and the Physical Eligibility
    Test. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that there were 61
    unfilled vacancies though it was submitted that it was meant for the
    Gorkha candidates.
14. We are not impressed with the argument of the State that the error
    was so grave as to constitute wrong or mis-leading information. We
    say on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Even the
6                                                          [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                 DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS


     State has not chosen to resort to any criminal action, clearly implying
     that even they did not consider this error as having fallen foul of the
     following clause in the advertisement:-
          “Instructions to fill online application form are available
          on the website. It is recommended to all the candidates
          to carefully read the instructions before filling the online
          application form and kindly fill the appropriate response
          in the following tabs. In case, the information given by
          the candidates found wrong or misleading, the application
          form will get rejected and necessary criminal actions will
          also be taken against the candidate.”
15. Recently this Bench in Divya vs. Union of India & Ors.,
    2023:INSC:900 = 2023 (13) Scale 730, 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., [2016] SCC OnLine
    Del 6563, 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.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant, in her written submissions, cited
    the following judgments in support of her proposition that inadvertent
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                          7

     VASHIST NARAYAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.


     error in filling up the date of birth when no advantage is derived will
     not constitute a wilful mis-representation and contended that in all
     those cases reliefs were given to the candidates:
     i)     Arkshit Kapoor vs. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del
            10154 [para 20]
     ii)    K. Sangeetha vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
            (2018) SCC OnLine Mad 5075 [Paras 9 & 11]
     iii)   Anuj Pratap Singh vs. Union Public Service Commission,
            2018 SCC OnLine Del 10982 [Paras 15,16 & 21]
     iv)    Shubham Tushir vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del
            9831 [Paras 4 & 10]
     v)     Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs. Shubham Tushir
            LPA No. 237 of 2020 before the Delhi High Court
     vi)    Poonam Pal vs. M.P. Gramin Bank, (2022) SCC OnLine MP
            2921 [Paras 9-12]
17. In fact, in Anuj Pratap Singh (supra), as is clear from para 14 of
    the said judgment, the candidate unable to correct the error at the
    first point was forced to repeat it while submitting the application for
    sitting in the main exam since he had no other option. The Court
    accepted the explanation and condoned the error in the filling up of
    the column pertaining to the date of birth.
18. The learned counsel for the State drew attention to the verification
    by the appellant, of the details in a printed form furnished by the
    selection board. He contended that the appellant signed the form
    which carried the date of birth. First of all, the form was a printed
    form which reflected the date of birth as given by the appellant and
    the appellant signed the printed form on 10.03.2018. We are inclined
    to accept the explanation of the appellant that since the appellant
    was unaware of his own mistake he had mechanically signed the
    printed form. It is only later, on 11.06.2018, on the publication of
    the result that the appellant realized the error. 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.
8                                                           [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                 DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS


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 corrective mechanism offered. In the instant case, we cannot turn
    a Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed. In the order dated
    22.11.2021 in C.A. No. 6983 of 2021 [Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union
    of India & Ors.], this Court rightly observed that though technology
    is a great enabler, there is at the same time, a digital divide.
20. In one of the cases cited as a precedent in the counter affidavit,
    before the High Court, Pankaj Paswan vs. State of Bihar Anr.,
    2015 SCC On Line Patna 8739, the State had taken a defence that
    many candidates applied in more than one place and hence there
    could be deliberate tweaking in the date of birth to take advantage
    of the selection process in more than one district or region. It is very
    important to notice that there is no such plea taken in the present
    case. If any such device or trick had been adopted, the State would
    have easily detected the same and placed the same before the Court.
    The fact that the same has not been done shows that there was no
    trick or device resorted to by the appellant. 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.
21. Learned counsel for the State, in the written submissions, stated that
    the instructions clearly stipulated that if two or more candidates obtain
    the same marks in the Physical Eligibility Test, their relative rank in
    the final merit list could be determined on the basis of their date of
    birth. The implication in the submission is that the date of birth is a
    significant aspect. On that basis, he submits that the cancellation
    ought to be upheld. We do not find merit in the submission. The
    original date of birth, as available is 18.12.1997, in the educational
    certificates. There is no dispute that the appellant’s date of birth was,
    in fact, 18.12.1997. In view of that, we do not see the said clause in
    the instructions as an impediment for the selection of the appellant.
22. Learned counsel for the State has also, in the written submissions,
    cited the judgment of this Court in Yogesh Kumar and Others
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                            9

     VASHIST NARAYAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.


     vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 548. The said
     judgment is clearly distinguishable. There the issue was about allowing
     entry of ineligible persons into the selection. While the eligibility
     prescribed was Teacher’s Training Certificate from a recognized
     institute or intermediate or equivalent from a recognized Board/
     University with an elective subject in the required language at the
     matric level, candidates with B.Ed. degree sought appointment as
     Assistant Teacher. Negating their claim, this Court held that the
     B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than
     the Teacher’s Training Certificate, because the nature of the training
     imparted for grant of certificate and for grant of degree was totally
     different. In that context, this Court held that deviating from the rules
     and allowing entry to ineligible persons would deprive many others
     who could have competed for the post. Yogesh Kumar (supra) has
     no application to the facts of the present case. Equally distinguishable
     are the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Rohit Kumar and
     Another vs. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del
     1219 and Pradeep Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, 2022
     SCC OnLine Del 239.
23. In the case of Rohit Kumar (supra), the undisputed facts, as is
    clear from para 10 of the judgment, was that the candidate was
    declared unsuccessful on two counts, namely, that the OBC certificate
    uploaded by the candidate was not as per the format as mentioned
    in the advertisement and additionally on the ground that the date
    of issuance of the certificate was wrongly mentioned in the online
    application.
24. In Pradeep Kumar (supra), the identity proof (Aadhaar Card) was not
    uploaded and instead the self photograph of the candidate has been
    uploaded. We find that the said two judgments are distinguishable
    on facts for the reasons set out above.
25. On the peculiar facts of this case, considering the background in which
    the error occurred, we are inclined to set aside the cancellation. We
    are not impressed with the finding of the Division Bench that there
    was no prayer seeking quashment 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
10                                                           [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                  DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS


      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 altar of technicalities.
      Conclusion
26. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the judgment of the
    Division Bench of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 1271 of 2019 dated
    22.08.2022 and direct the respondent-State to treat the appellant as a
    candidate who has “passed”, in the selection process held under the
    advertisement No. 1 of 2017 issued by the Central Selection Board
    (Constable Recruitment), Patna with the date of birth as 18.12.1997.
    We further direct that if the appellant is otherwise not disqualified,
    the case of the appellant be considered and necessary appointment
    letter issued. We further direct that, 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. We notice
    from the written submissions of the State that 21,391 vacancies have
    been notified in Advertisement No.1 of 2023 and it is stated that the
    procedure for selection is ongoing. We place the said statement on
    record. We direct compliance to be made of the aforesaid direction
    within a period of four weeks from today.
27. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.


      Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan    Result of the case: Appeal allowed.