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. (Para 2)
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. (Para 3)
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. (Para 7)
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?
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. (Para 11)
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. (Para 15)
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 alter of technicalities. (Para 25)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 2 SC
[2024 INSC 2 ]
VASHIST NARAYAN KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12230 of 2023)-Decided on 02-01-2024.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-STPLWeb-2-SC.pdf
