Candidate Can't be Disqualified from a job for Minor Errors in recruitment form: SC

Candidate Can't be Disqualified from a job for Minor Errors in recruitment form: SC

A bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and K V Viswanathan directed the state government to appoint the candidate as a police constable, nearly six years after he successfully completed the written examination and passed the physical fitness test.

Synopsis

The bench acknowledged that the petitioner, hailing from a rural background, sought assistance from an internet cafe owner in a nearby town to complete the online form. An inadvertent mistake occurred during this process, leading to the listing of his date of birth as December 8 instead of the accurate December 18. The bench deemed this error trivial and asserted that the candidate should not face repercussions for it.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court asserted that the pursuit of justice should not be compromised due to technicalities. The ruling emphasized that minor errors, such as a genuine mistake in indicating a date of birth, should not serve as grounds to deny employment to a qualified candidate. The case involved a young man from a Bihar village who, due to an error in his date of birth, was initially denied the position of a police constable, a TOI report stated.

A bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and K V Viswanathan directed the state government to appoint the candidate as a police constable, nearly six years after he successfully completed the written examination and passed the physical fitness test. The bench acknowledged that the petitioner, hailing from a rural background, sought assistance from an internet cafe owner in a nearby town to complete the online form. An inadvertent mistake occurred during this process, leading to the listing of his date of birth as December 8 instead of the accurate December 18. The bench deemed this error trivial and asserted that the candidate should not face repercussions for it.

Justice Viswanathan, the author of the judgment, highlighted the existence of a digital divide despite the enabling nature of technology. He stressed that justice should prevail over technicalities. The court's decision granted relief to the petitioner, who had endured a legal battle for six years to realize his dream of becoming a police officer. The court overturned the Patna High Court's order, which had upheld the government's decision to disqualify him.

The court stated, "On the peculiar facts of this case, considering the background in which the error occurred, we are inclined to set aside the cancellation. Justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities." It rejected the state government's plea, emphasizing that the error was trivial and did not play a role in the candidate's successful completion of the selection process.

"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," remarked Justice Viswanathan, dismissing the state government's opposition to quashing the disqualification.

The court further stated that it was not convinced by the argument that the error constituted wrong or misleading information. It maintained that, after a candidate successfully completes all stages of the selection process, cancellation of candidature should only occur after a careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, not for trivial omissions or errors.

"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 the publication of the result that the appellant realized the error. Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression," concluded the court, upholding justice in this unique case.