In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India granted relief to Vashist Narayan Kumar, a resident of a small village in Bihar, who aspired to become a Police Constable. Kumar had applied for the position under the reserved category and successfully cleared the written examination and Physical Eligibility Test. However, an inadvertent error in his date of birth on the online application led to his final result being declared as failed.
The appellant, represented by counsel Ms. Shaswati Parhi, contended that the error was a trivial mistake and did not impact his eligibility for the Police Constable position. Kumar explained that while filling out the online form at a local cybercafe, he mistakenly entered his date of birth as 08.12.1997 instead of the correct date, 18.12.1997. The error went unnoticed until the final result was declared on 11.06.2018.
The State, represented by Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, opposed Kumar’s plea, arguing that the advertisement clearly instructed candidates to provide correct information and warned of cancellation if any discrepancy was found during document verification. The State contended that Kumar had the opportunity to correct the error but failed to do so.
The Supreme Court, led by Justice K.V. Viswanathan, analyzed the facts and held that the error made by Kumar was trivial and unintentional. The Court noted that the appellant derived no advantage from the mistake, as both dates of birth made him eligible for the position. The judges emphasized that Kumar, being unaware of the error, had signed a printed form reflecting the incorrect date of birth.
The Court also considered the clauses in the advertisement, including those on cancellation for incorrect information, and the provision for correction of errors. It found that the error did not warrant criminal action, as the State had not pursued such action. The judges acknowledged the digital divide and the challenges faced by candidates, particularly those from rural areas, in dealing with online forms.
Drawing on the principle that law does not concern itself with trifles (de minimis non curat lex), the Court distinguished the case from instances of deliberate misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The judges cited previous judgments, including Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India, to support the argument that trivial errors or omissions should not result in the cancellation of a candidate’s candidature, especially after successfully clearing all stages of the selection process.
In its concluding remarks, the Supreme Court set aside the cancellation and directed the State to treat Kumar as a candidate who passed the selection process with the correct date of birth. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to issue a directive for the State to issue the necessary appointment letter within four weeks.
The judgment, delivered on January 2, 2024, highlights the Court’s consideration of ground realities and the impact of technological challenges on candidates, ultimately ensuring justice in the face of a minor and unintentional error.
CASE NAME: Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12230 of 2023)
PARTIES: Vashist Narayan Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Others
Arushi Mengi, 2nd year B.AL.L.B student from The Law School, University of Jammu, and intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
