Case title: Reshmi Bhagat VS State of West Bengal and others
Case no.: WRIT PETITION No. 5442 of 2024
Dated on: 27th March 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble. MR Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, a young lady, hailing from interior parts of Jalpaiguri, where internet connectivity is poor according to the petitioner, applied for taking the examinations for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for banks. The respondent no. 2, that is, the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) was the common online platform conducting the said examinations. The petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted her credentials and duly filled up the requisite application form and submitted the same online for taking part in such examinations through a cybercafé with the help of her father. even after the petitioner passed the prelims and mains, when the petitioner’s turn came to be interviewed, certain discrepancies regarding her date of birth between the various documents submitted by her was apparently detected. According to the petitioner, the concerned banks left the decision as to whether to permit the petitioner to the respondent no. 2, which was in charge of conducting the examinations. Either way, since the age of the candidate was to be between 20 and 30 years at the relevant point of time, the petitioner fully qualified the said age criterion, whichever may be the date of birth taken for the petitioner. The petitioner, thus, challenges the decision of the respondents from letting her sit for the interview on the basis of such discrepancy.
ISSUES
- Whether the discrepancy in the petitioner’s date of birth, as reflected in different documents, can disqualify her from participating in the interview process for the banking examinations.
- Whether the eligibility criteria, specifically the date of birth mentioned in the online application, should be considered final and unmodifiable after submission.
- Whether the petitioner’s limited access to internet facilities, given her background from an interior part of Jalpaiguri, should be taken into account in the scrutiny of her application.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 14 of the Constitution of India: This guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The petitioner argues that the discrepancy in her date of birth should not disqualify her as it does not give her any undue advantage and thus should not be treated differently from others who might have similar minor errors.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article extends to the right to livelihood, meaning that arbitrary actions that could deprive someone of their means of livelihood, such as disqualifying a candidate on trivial grounds, may violate Article 21.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Counsel for appellant is argued that whereas the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner and her PAN Card, in consonance with her declaration in the application, showed her date of birth to be March 30, 2000, the birth certificate of the petitioner and, consequentially, her Indian School Certificate admit card depicted her date of birth as April 23, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported at (2024) 1 S.C.R. 1 for the proposition that if the person concerned gains no undue advantage and the mistake does not constitute wilful misrepresentation or fraud, considering the gravity of the lapse, the candidature can be permitted. Trivial omissions and errors, it is contended, cannot come in the way.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent IBPS argues that if the petitioner was armed with all the said documents, there was no conceivable reason why the petitioner disclosed her date of birth to be March 30, 2000, which is in contradistinction with her birth certificate and her ISC Admit Card. The rules are clear, it is submitted, to the effect that the eligibility criteria are to be satisfied by the concerned candidate by submission of due documents. It is further pointed out that as per the eligibility criteria, all particulars mentioned in the online application, inter alia including the date of birth of the candidate, will be considered as final and no challenge/modification will be allowed after submission of the online application form. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner loses out on the eligibility criteria itself and as such was rightly not considered for the interview.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The judgment cited by the petitioner is apt in the circumstances of the present case. The Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, observed 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. In the present case, the petitioner hails from the interior parts of the State where even proper internet facilities are not available. One can very well appreciate the impediments and handicaps under which such a person has uploaded the online application and furnished due details and credentials, which was done through a cybercafé, since the petitioner did not have the means to do the uploading from her own data pack. That apart, the object of such examinations for the banking sector and other public services is not to restrict the participation but to ensure that the participation reaches every nook and corner of the country, to the places which are not so advantaged as large townships or cities. It is not the case of the petitioner merely that she wants to have a modification of her online application. The petitioner places her case on a wider footing inasmuch as either of the dates of birth, if taken to be correct, would make the petitioner eligible as per the eligibility criterion regarding age. The object of a public examination cannot by any means be construed to be so restrictive as to be cruel on the candidates, particularly for brilliant people like the petitioner, who has already cleared the preliminary and mains in the tough banking examination concerned. The endeavor of the authorities ought to be encourage such people and not to shut them out on trivial issues. I do not find from the records that the petitioner could derive any undue advantage or, for that matter, any advantage whatsoever from the discrepancy in her date of birth, as either way, the petitioner would qualify on the eligibility criterion in respect of age. There does not arise any question, thus, of any willful misrepresentation on her part. The petitioner was permitted to take the prelims and mains and already crossed those hurdles and as such made herself eligible with flying colors to have an opportunity to participate in the interviews. Accordingly, the petitioner in the present case comes within the window as provided by the judgment of the Supreme Court, there being no gross anomaly or mala fides in the discrepancies relating to her date of birth. As such, for the purpose of the concerned banking examinations for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees, the petitioner is held to be fully qualified, since the documents submitted by her indicate that she is eligible in terms of age for participating in the said examinations. Since, the published timelines leave it open to the concerned banks to extend the date of interview till the end of this month, it is expected that the petitioner shall be permitted to have an interview with the concerned banks for the purpose of considering her candidature for the concerned posts. Accordingly, WPA No. 5442 of 2024 is allowed on contest, thereby directing the respondent no. 2-IBPS to immediately intimate the concerned banks that the petitioner is fully eligible for participation in the interviews for the examinations being held for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees in banks. Accordingly, the respondent no. 2-IBPS shall publish the name of the petitioner in the provisional allotment list within 24 hours. Hence petition is allowed contest, thereby directing the respondent no. 2-IBPS to immediately intimate the concerned banks that the petitioner is fully eligible for participation in the interviews for the examinations being held for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees in banks There will be no order as to costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP
