Summary
The Supreme Court set aside cancellation of a constable candidate’s selection for an inadvertent ten-day date-of-birth error in his online form. Both dates satisfied age eligibility, he gained no advantage and cleared all stages. On the special facts, the State had to treat him as passed and appoint him if otherwise qualified, even if no vacancy remained.
Issues
- Whether the date-of-birth discrepancy was a material misrepresentation or a trivial bona fide error.
- Whether failure to use the correction mechanism or expressly seek quashing of the web result barred relief.
- What appointment direction was appropriate if no vacancy remained.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaOn the special facts, the Court required issuance of an appointment letter even if no vacancy remained, subject to the candidate otherwise not being disqualified. The State could adjust that vacancy in the next recruitment. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
Held
- The incorrect birth date was a genuine, trivial mistake on the peculiar facts: both dates met eligibility, no advantage resulted, the candidate produced the correct educational documents and cleared every selection stage. It was not shown to be a device to gain an improper recruitment benefit and did not amount to wilful suppression or misrepresentation. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25)
- The candidate’s mechanical signature on the printed form and failure to invoke the available correction mechanism did not justify rejection for this insignificant error. The narrow tolerance for trivial mistakes did not extend eligibility to an otherwise ineligible applicant; authorities involving substantive disqualifications were distinguishable. (¶¶ 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- The writ prayer sought consideration on the correct birth date and an appointment letter. The absence of a separate express prayer to quash the online result did not bar appropriate relief, which the writ court could mould. (¶ 25)
- The State was directed to treat the appellant as having passed with the birth date shown in his educational certificate and issue the necessary appointment if otherwise not disqualified. The no-vacancy contingency was addressed exceptionally under Article 142, with adjustment permitted in a future recruitment. (¶¶ 26, 27)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court judgment was set aside. The State must treat the candidate as passed using 18 December 1997 as his birth date and, if otherwise qualified, issue an appointment letter even if no vacancy remains, with liberty for future vacancy adjustment. Compliance within four weeks. No costs.