NEW DELHI: “Justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities,” the Supreme Court said on Tuesday. It held that trivial omissions or errors, such as a genuine mistake in mentioning a date of birth, should not be grounds to deny a job to a successful candidate. This ruling came in the case of a village boy from Bihar, who was denied the job of a police constable due to a mistake in his date of birth.
A bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and K V Viswanathan directed the state government to appoint him as a police constable, almost six years after he qualified in the written examination and passed the physical fitness test.The bench noted that the petitioner, coming from a village background, had sought the help of an internet cafe owner in a nearby town to fill out the online form. A mistake was made in this process, listing his date of birth as December 8 instead of the correct date, December 18. The bench stated that this was a trivial fault and he should not be punished for it.
Justice Viswanathan, who authored the judgment for the bench, stated that although technology is a great enabler, there exists a digital divide. He emphasized that justice should not be forsaken on the altar of technicalities. The court granted relief to the petitioner, who had fought a legal battle for six years to fulfill his dream of becoming police personnel. It quashed the order of the Patna High Court, which had upheld the government’s decision to disqualify him.
“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 December 18, 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 altar of technicalities,” the court said.
“In this case, the appellant has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafe got the better of the appellant. He omitted to notice the error and even failed to avail the corrective mechanism offered. In the instant case, we cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed,” Justice Viswanathan said while rejecting the plea of the state government which strongly opposed quashing his disqualification.
The court said that it wasn’t impressed with the argument of the State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or misleading information and said that after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors.
“We are inclined to accept the explanation of the appellant that since the appellant was unaware of his own mistake he had mechanically signed the printed form. It is only later on the publication of the result that the appellant realized the error. We do not think that the appellant could be penalized for this insignificant error which made no difference to the ultimate result. Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression,” the court said.
A bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and K V Viswanathan directed the state government to appoint him as a police constable, almost six years after he qualified in the written examination and passed the physical fitness test.The bench noted that the petitioner, coming from a village background, had sought the help of an internet cafe owner in a nearby town to fill out the online form. A mistake was made in this process, listing his date of birth as December 8 instead of the correct date, December 18. The bench stated that this was a trivial fault and he should not be punished for it.
Justice Viswanathan, who authored the judgment for the bench, stated that although technology is a great enabler, there exists a digital divide. He emphasized that justice should not be forsaken on the altar of technicalities. The court granted relief to the petitioner, who had fought a legal battle for six years to fulfill his dream of becoming police personnel. It quashed the order of the Patna High Court, which had upheld the government’s decision to disqualify him.
“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 December 18, 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 altar of technicalities,” the court said.
“In this case, the appellant has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafe got the better of the appellant. He omitted to notice the error and even failed to avail the corrective mechanism offered. In the instant case, we cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed,” Justice Viswanathan said while rejecting the plea of the state government which strongly opposed quashing his disqualification.
The court said that it wasn’t impressed with the argument of the State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or misleading information and said that after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors.
“We are inclined to accept the explanation of the appellant that since the appellant was unaware of his own mistake he had mechanically signed the printed form. It is only later on the publication of the result that the appellant realized the error. We do not think that the appellant could be penalized for this insignificant error which made no difference to the ultimate result. Errors of this kind, as noticed in the present case, which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression,” the court said.