Candidature Can't Be Cancelled For 'Minor Errors': MP High Court Restores Job Offer Of Woman Who Entered Wrong Date Of Birth In Application

Justice Pranay Verma observed,

"It is not the case of respondent itself that the petitioner has derived any advantage by entering the wrong date of birth in the application. There was no intentional misrepresentation on part of the petitioner as she had submitted her school Certificate. There is a difference between a mere inadvertent error and misrepresentation or suppression. Cancellation of candidature of petitioner on the ground of typographical error in her application form is hence arbitrary and grossly disproportionate to the gravity of her lapse."

The case of the Petitioner was that she had appeared in written exam for the post of Office Assistant (Multi purpose) in the Respondent Bank and successfully cleared the same. However, while submitting her application for the said exam, she made a typographical error and mentioned her date of birth to be 02.11.1991, instead of 04.11.1991. While the Bank initially gave her the offer letter, they later rejected her candidature at the stage of documents verification on the ground that she mentioned her date of birth incorrectly. Petitioner submitted a representation to the Bank, seeking permission to make necessary changes in her form but they did not decide on the same.

The Petitioner argued that she had not gained anything out of mentioning the wrong date of birth and was eligible for the said post either way. She submitted that she was duly selected on merit and that it was an inadvertent typographical mistake on her part which ought to have been condoned.

The Court opined that when material discrepancy is noticed in the application form, the candidature may be cancelled even after the application has been processed and candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. But when a candidate has participated in the selection process and has cleared all the stages successfully, candidature should not be cancelled without careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse. The same, however, it noted, cannot be done for minor omissions or errors.

Considering the factual matrix of the matter, the Court noted that it was neither a case of deliberate misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner nor did she derive any benefit out of her mistake.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court allowed the Petition, directing the Respondent Bank to consider the candidature of the Petitioner and further to issue appointment order in her favour.

Case Title: Poonam Pal D/o Laxman Singh Pal Vs. Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 79

Click Here To Read/Download Order