In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court granted relief to an individual aspiring to become a Police Constable, whose application for the position was rejected due to a mistake in providing his date of birth.

The bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan, directed the authorities to treat the applicant as having successfully passed the selection process based on the date of birth mentioned in his Class 10th certificate. The Bench criticized the state for magnifying a minor error and emphasized that if the appellant was otherwise eligible, he should be considered for the appointment, and an appointment letter should be issued.

The case involved an applicant from a marginalized community who applied for the Police Constable position under the reserved category. Despite meeting all eligibility criteria and successfully navigating through the selection process, he was disqualified solely due to a discrepancy in the date of birth provided in the online application form and his school mark sheet.

The appellant argued that the mistake was unintentional, and he had received no advantage from the error, as he met the age requirements in either case. Despite filing a representation and approaching the Patna High Court, the appellant did not receive a favorable response. The High Court, including a Division Bench, upheld the decision, stating that the appellant did not seek to challenge the result.

Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant had participated in the selection process and cleared all stages, discovering the error only after failing the selection. Referring to previous court decisions, the Bench reiterated that cancellations of candidatures should only occur for significant lapses, not trivial errors.

The court emphasized the principle of "De minimis non curat lex," stating that the error in this case was trivial and should not have led to the cancellation of the appellant's candidature.

The Bench refused to penalize the appellant for an insignificant error that did not impact the ultimate result. It highlighted that errors of this nature, made inadvertently, should not be considered as misrepresentation or willful suppression.

Additionally, the court rejected the state's argument that the error was grave, pointing out that no criminal action had been initiated against the appellant. The Supreme Court, in setting aside the High Court's judgment, underscored the power of a Writ Court to shape relief and stressed that justice should not be sacrificed on the altar of technicalities.

Case: Vashist Narayan Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12230 of 2023).

Click to read/download Judgment.