Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the rejection of an SSC candidate’s candidature, holding that a mere technical error in an online application cannot be equated with suppression of material facts. The Court emphasised that recruitment rules meant to curb fraud cannot be applied mechanically to defeat the career of a bona fide and meritorious candidate.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a recruitment process initiated by the Staff Selection Commission through an advertisement for Constable (GD) posts in CAPFs, NIA, SSF, and Assam Rifles. The Petitioner applied online, but due to an inadvertent error at a cyber kiosk, the domicile district was incorrectly entered in the application form, despite his correct address being reflected elsewhere in the same form. Notably, the petitioner cleared all stages of the selection process, securing about 90 percent marks against a cut-off of approximately 73.8 percent, and successfully qualifying for physical and medical tests. However, during document verification, his candidature was rejected solely on the ground of a mismatch between the domicile entry in the online form and the original domicile certificate. Despite earlier directions of the High Court to consider whether the error impacted selection, the authorities reiterated rejection, leading to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the discrepancy was a bona fide, inadvertent data entry error caused by the kiosk operator and not a deliberate misrepresentation. The Counsel argued that the internal consistency of the application form, where the permanent and postal address correctly reflected the actual domicile, clearly disproved any malafide intent. Emphasising merit, counsel submitted that the petitioner secured significantly higher marks than the cut-off and gained no unfair advantage from the error. Reliance was placed on the principle that trivial mistakes should not result in cancellation unless they affect the selection process or confer undue benefit. The Counsel further argued that the rejection order violated earlier judicial directions and was arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondents argued that the terms of the recruitment advertisement were binding and explicitly prohibited any change in domicile details after submission of the application. They emphasised that the online system incorporated a double verification mechanism, making the error attributable to the petitioner. Given the scale of the examination involving lakhs of candidates, strict adherence to rules was necessary to maintain fairness and administrative efficiency. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents to contend that conditions in recruitment notifications carry the force of law and cannot be relaxed on individual grounds without undermining the integrity of the selection process.
Observation of the Court:
The Bench observed that the central issue was whether the discrepancy in the application form constituted misrepresentation or was merely an inadvertent error. It noted that the record demonstrated clear “internal consistency,” as the petitioner’s permanent and postal address correctly reflected his actual domicile, despite an incorrect entry in one column. This, the Bench held, effectively negated any inference of malafide intent. Recognising the practical realities of online submissions, the Court further observed that “a hurried kiosk operator, navigating a sluggish server, can easily select the wrong adjacent drop-down option… the system only confirms repetition of data entry; it does not negate human error.”
The Court noted that the petitioner’s performance in the selection process, securing approximately ninety percent marks, clearly established that he qualified on his own merit, without deriving any undue advantage from the error. It held that recruitment provisions must be interpreted in a purposive manner, drawing a clear distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation and genuine mistakes. Emphasising this distinction, the Court observed that such clauses operate as a safeguard against abuse of the process, and not as a mechanical tool to penalise bona fide candidates.
The Bench further held that trivial and inadvertent errors must be assessed contextually, particularly where they have no bearing on the outcome of the selection process. Invoking the principle of de minimis non curat lex, and relying on binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court observed that minor discrepancies, absent any element of advantage or deception, cannot justify the extreme consequence of cancellation of candidature.
The Court finally observed that the authorities had adopted an unduly rigid and “pedantic” approach, failing to adhere to earlier judicial directions that required an assessment of whether the error impacted the selection process. It held that such non-application of mind rendered the impugned action arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, warranting judicial interference.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection order, and directed the authorities to accept the petitioner’s valid domicile certificate and process his candidature for appointment based on merit.
Case Title: Rohit Gami Vs. Union of India Through The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission and Ors
Case No.: W.P. No. 19419/2020
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Manoj Manav
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Nidhi Bohara
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
