Supreme Court Allows Relief for Trivial Error in Application Form: Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2 January 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 2 January 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 2

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a minor error in an application form, which does not affect eligibility, lead to the rejection of a candidate? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a candidate’s date of birth was incorrectly recorded in the online application form. The Court held that trivial errors, which do not provide any advantage to the candidate, should not be a ground for rejection. The judgment was authored by Justice K.V. Viswanathan, with Justice J.K. Maheshwari concurring.

Case Background

Vashist Narayan Kumar, the appellant, applied for the post of Police Constable in Bihar under the reserved category. He cleared the written examination and the Physical Eligibility Test. During document verification, it was found that his date of birth in the online application form was 08.12.1997, while his school mark sheet showed 18.12.1997. The appellant explained that this was an inadvertent error made at the cyber cafe where he filled the form. He was declared as having failed due to this discrepancy, despite meeting all other eligibility criteria.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, citing the advertisement’s clauses about providing correct information and the availability of a correction mechanism. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision, adding that the appellant had not sought the quashing of the result declared on 11.06.2018. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The advertisement for the Police Constable post stipulated that candidates must correctly mention their date of birth as per their 10th board certificate. It also stated that any discrepancy found while matching the information would lead to the cancellation of the candidature. The advertisement also provided a mechanism for correcting errors in the application form by re-depositing the application fee and filling a new application.

The Supreme Court also considered the legal maxim “De minimis non curat lex”, which means that the law does not concern itself with trifles.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The error in the date of birth was inadvertent and occurred while filling the form at a cyber cafe.
• The error did not provide any advantage to the appellant, as he was eligible with either date of birth.
• The appellant produced his educational certificates, which contained the correct date of birth.
• The appellant relied on judgments where relief was granted to candidates for similar inadvertent errors.

State’s Arguments:

• The advertisement clearly stated that candidates should correctly mention their date of birth according to their 10th board certificate.
• The advertisement also mentioned that any discrepancy would lead to cancellation of the candidature.
• The appellant did not avail the facility to correct the error.
• The State contended that the date of birth is a significant aspect, as it is used to determine the merit list in case of a tie in the Physical Eligibility Test.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. 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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the principle laid down in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors. [2016] SCC OnLine Del 6563* that trivial errors should not lead to cancellation of candidature after successful participation in the selection process.
• The Court also followed the judgments in Arkshit Kapoor vs. Union of India 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10154*, K. Sangeetha vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (2018) SCC OnLine Mad 5075*, Anuj Pratap Singh vs. Union Public Service Commission 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10982*, Shubham Tushir vs. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9831*, and Poonam Pal vs. M.P. Gramin Bank (2022) SCC OnLine MP 2921* which held that inadvertent errors in filling up the date of birth, when no advantage is derived, will not constitute a wilful misrepresentation.
• The Court distinguished the case of Divya vs. Union of India & Ors. 2023 :INSC :900 = 2023 (13) Scale 730*, stating that it carved out a narrow exception for trivial errors.
• The Court distinguished the case of Pankaj Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2015 SCC On Line Patna 8739* as there was no plea taken that the appellant had applied in more than one place.
• The Court distinguished the case of Yogesh Kumar and Others vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Others (2003) 3 SCC 548*, as it dealt with the issue of allowing ineligible persons into the selection process.
• The Court distinguished the cases of 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* on the facts of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on the fact that the error in the application form was a genuine mistake and did not provide any advantage to the appellant. The Court emphasized that the appellant had cleared all stages of the selection process and the error was trivial and did not affect the merit list. The Court also noted that the State did not resort to any criminal action, which shows that the error was not considered grave. The Court considered the ground realities and the digital divide that exists in the country.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation of strict adherence to rules but rejected it as it would lead to an unjust outcome in this case. The Court held that the error was trivial and did not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression. The Court emphasized the need to consider the ground realities and the digital divide that exists in the country.

The Supreme Court held that the error in the application form was a trivial one and did not justify the rejection of the appellant’s candidature. The Court noted that the appellant had cleared all the stages of the selection process and the error did not affect his eligibility. The Court also held that the State was not justified in making a mountain out of a molehill. The Court stated, “Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression.” The Court also observed, “Justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities.” The Court further added, “In the instant case, we cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed.”

Key Takeaways

• Trivial errors in application forms, which do not affect eligibility or provide any advantage to the candidate, should not be a ground for rejection.
• Courts should consider the ground realities and the digital divide that exists in the country while dealing with such cases.
• The principle of “De minimis non curat lex” should be applied to avoid penalizing candidates for minor errors.
• Justice should not be sacrificed on the altar of technicalities.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State to treat the appellant as a candidate who has “passed” in the selection process and to consider his case for appointment. The Court further directed that if there is no vacancy, an appointment letter should still be issued on the special facts of this case, and the vacancy can be adjusted in the next recruitment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that minor, inadvertent errors in application forms that do not affect a candidate’s eligibility or provide any unfair advantage should not be grounds for rejecting their candidature. This judgment reinforces the principle that the law does not concern itself with trifles and that justice should not be sacrificed for technicalities. This is not a change in the previous position of law, but rather a reaffirmation of the principle that trivial errors should not be penalized.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. provides relief to candidates who may have made minor errors in their application forms. The Court has emphasized that trivial errors should not be a reason to reject a candidate who has otherwise qualified for a position. This judgment reinforces the principle that justice should not be sacrificed for technicalities and that the law does not concern itself with trifles.