Trivial Domicile Error Without Undue Advantage Cannot Justify Cancelling Appointment: Gauhati High Court
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Robin Phukan and Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer held that a trivial, inadvertent, and bona fide error in an application that does not affect eligibility or provide any undue advantage is not a valid ground to cancel a candidature or appointment.
Background Facts
The respondents had applied for the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF in view of the online notice, dated 21/07/2018, issued by the Staff Selection Commission. They successfully cleared all the examinations, and appointment letters were issued to them. They reported for duty and were assigned force numbers and duties.
However, the DIG, Group Centre, CRPF, Agartala, cancelled their offer of appointment letters as during verification, it was found that the domicile district in their online application did not match with their Permanent Residential Certificate. The matter was forwarded to the Staff Selection Commission for revision of result, which intimated that the respondents had not qualified in document verification. Thereafter, the Office of the DIG, Group Centre, CRPF, Agartala, cancelled the candidature of all the respondents to the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF on account of mismatch in their documents.
Being aggrieved, the respondents challenged the cancellation letters by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge set aside the cancellation letters and directed the appellants to induct the respondents to their service as Constable (GD) forthwith.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the intra-court appeal before the High Court of Gauhati.
It was argued by the appellants that the Single Judge had ignored the fact that there was a mismatch in respect of the information given by the respondents in their online application, in respect of their domicile and Permanent Residence Certificate. It was also argued that in the notice, clear and specific instructions were incorporated referring to the significance of domicile and the candidates were repeatedly informed to be careful in submitting the application.
It was further submitted that the correct domicile State/district data are key inputs for the preparation of results and fixing the cut-off State-wise and further district-wise. Therefore, furnishing of a correct domicile district/domicile state is mandatory. It was contended that to waive or dilute the stipulated terms and conditions would introduce elements of discrimination, arbitrariness, and unfairness.
On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the single judge held that the discrepancy arose while filling up the form and that the respondents had produced the correct certificate and gained no advantage, and the error had no bearing on selection.
Findings and Observations of the Court
It was observed by the Division Bench that as per Clause 3 of the Notice, the candidates are required to submit domicile/PRC against his/her State/UT. It was observed that the Single Judge had recorded its finding that all the respondents were permanent residents and indigenous people of the State of Nagaland, and the discrepancy would not have a material bearing in the decision to reject the eligibility of the respondents for appointment.
It was further observed that there is a thin line of distinction between a false statement and an incorrect statement. There was no advantage of any nature which had been derived by the respondents from incorrect disclosure of facts.
Relying upon the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others, it was held that after a candidate has participated in and successfully cleared all stages of the selection process, candidature can be cancelled only after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, not of a trivial omission or error.
The case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India was also relied upon wherein it was held that the employer's discretion is not absolute, and the power to terminate service or cancel candidature for false information/suppression must be exercised reasonably and objectively. Further, in Shyam Nandan Mehta vs. Santosh Kumar & Ors., it was held that incorrect/non-material information that does not affect eligibility to appear in the exam, or selection, cannot ordinarily form the basis for cancelling an appointment.
It was held by the Division Bench that the mistake was inadvertent and trivial in nature, and the appellants failed to demonstrate that the respondents had derived any undue advantage from such mistake. It was held by the court that the ground for cancellation of the appointment of the respondents appears to be impermissible.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Case Name : Union of India & Ors. v. Shri Thungbemo & Ors.
Case No. : WA/28/2025
Counsel for the Petitioner : Yanger Wati
Counsel for the Respondent : T. B. Jamir, I Jamir, Meyiren Jamir, Asen T Jamir