2024 INSC 2 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12230 of 2023)

Vashist Narayan Kumar … Appellant (s)

Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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.

2

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,

3

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

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 10

th

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

4

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.

5

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 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

6

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 10

th

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

7

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 State has not chosen to resort to any

criminal action, clearly implying that even they did not

8

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,

9

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 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]

10

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

11

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.

12

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

13

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

14

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 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

15

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

16

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 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

17

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

18

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.

…..…………………J.

(J.K. Maheshwari)

…..…………………J.

(K.V. Viswanathan)

New Delhi;

January 02, 2024.