In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India set aside the cancellation of a police constable candidate’s application due to a minor discrepancy in the date of birth. The case, Vashist Narayan Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1/2024, was presided over by a Division Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan.
The appellant, belonging to a downtrodden section of society, had applied for the post of Police Constable under the reserved category. Despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria and successfully passing all stages of the selection process, his candidature was rejected due to a minor error in his date of birth. While the application form showed his birth date as December 8, 1997, his school mark sheet reflected it as December 18, 1997.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, directed the respondent authorities to treat the appellant as a candidate who ‘passed’ the selection process, considering the birth date mentioned in his Class 10th certificate. The Bench remarked that the State was not justified in making
“a mountain out of this molehill”
and added that if the appellant was not otherwise disqualified, his case was to be considered, and the necessary appointment letter issued.
Also read-Supreme Court Set To Deliver Verdict On Adani-Hindenburg Controversy, Tomorrow (lawchakra.in)
Justice Maheshwari and Justice Viswanathan emphasized that trivial errors or omissions should not be grounds for disqualification, as the law does not concern itself with trifles, a principle encapsulated in the legal maxim “De minimis non curat lex.” The Bench noted,
“Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression.”
The appellant had approached the Patna High Court after his candidature was rejected, arguing that the error was inadvertent and made while filling the form at a cyber cafe. The High Court, however, did not grant relief, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s decision underlines the importance of considering the gravity of lapses in such cases. It observed that the State itself did not consider the error grave, as it had not initiated any criminal action against the appellant. The Bench stated,
“We are not impressed with the argument of the State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or misleading information.”
This judgment is significant as it acknowledges the human element in bureaucratic processes and emphasizes the need for a compassionate approach towards inadvertent errors, especially those made by individuals from less privileged backgrounds. The Supreme Court’s directive to issue an appointment letter to the appellant, if not disqualified otherwise, marks a crucial step in ensuring justice and fairness in employment processes.
Also read-Chief Justice Heated Exchange: “Is This The Way You Shout At Judges” (lawchakra.in)