Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Aish Mohammad, applied for the post of Constable in the Haryana Police. In the application form, he inadvertently entered his date of birth as 01.01.1972 instead of the correct date 01.01.1973. This typographical error was discovered during the scrutiny of documents. The respondents, State of Haryana and police authorities, rejected his candidature on the ground that the date of birth mentioned in the application did not match the matriculation certificate. The appellant challenged this rejection before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A learned Single Judge allowed his writ petition, directing the respondents to consider his candidature. However, a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.406 of 2011 reversed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the facts and found that the appellant's actual age was within the prescribed age limit for the post. The error was a mere typographical mistake and there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. The Court held that in the interest of justice, such minor errors should not be allowed to defeat the candidature of an otherwise eligible candidate. The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and restored the order of the Single Judge, directing the respondents to consider the appellant's candidature afresh. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Police Recruitment - Typographical Error in Application - Eligibility - The appellant made a typographical error in the date of birth column but his actual age was within the prescribed limits - The High Court had disqualified him, but the Supreme Court held that such minor error should not defeat the candidature in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation - Held that substantial compliance with eligibility criteria is sufficient (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate who made a typographical error in the date of birth column in the application form but was otherwise eligible should be disqualified from police recruitment.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of Division Bench set aside. Order of Single Judge restored. Respondents directed to consider appellant's candidature afresh. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Substantial compliance
- typographical error
- eligibility criteria
- condonation of delay
- interest of justice
