Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19620 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Sukanta Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha and Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Ms. B. K. Pattnaik, Adv. Mr. Ch. S. Mishra, AGA Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, Adv.. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-18.09.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.12.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the actions of the Opposite Parties, alleging that he was unlawfully excluded from the selection list for the position of Data Entry Operator due to a minor defect in his e-challan payment. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows: Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 (i) The petitioner applied in response to an advertisement issued by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission (“OSSC”) on 20.05.2015. The advertisement invited online applications from eligible candidates for the recruitment of 232 Junior Data Entry Operators on a contractual basis in the State Secretariat under the Home Department, Government of Odisha. (ii) As per the eligibility criteria, candidates with a bachelor’s degree in any discipline and adequate knowledge in computer applications were eligible to apply. The minimum age requirement was 21 years, and the maximum age was 32 years as of 01.01.2015. Age relaxation was provided for candidates from SEBC, SC, ST, and Women categories (by 5 years), 10 years for candidates in the PWD category, and additional service for ex-servicemen. (iii) The examination process involved a written test, followed by the submission of original certificates and documents for verification during the viva voce test for successful candidates. Applicants were required to submit their applications through the Commission’s website (www.odishassa.in), upload scanned images of their passport-size photographs and full signatures, and fill in relevant details such as category, gender, special category, addresses, educational qualifications, and marks obtained in various examinations. Candidates, other than those from SC, ST, or PWD categories, were required to pay an examination fee of Rs. 100/-, which could be paid online or via conventional treasury deposit.The petitioner, being an eligible Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 candidate, submitted his online application and paid the examination fee through an e-challan. (iv) The petitioner’s application was found to be in order, and he was allowed to appear for the computer fundamental theory test scheduled for 16.04.2017 at Raghunathjew Junior College, Tulasipur, Cuttack. The petitioner performed well in the written test and was successful according to his results. (v) On 28.05.2020, Opposite Party No. 2 issued a notice requiring candidates who listed government contractual experience but did not claim in-service benefits to submit verification certificates. Submissions were due at the Commission’s office by 05.06.2020, failing which their candidature would be rejected. The petitioner’s roll number appeared in the notice. (vi) The petitioner performed well in the computer fundamental theory test, the computer practical test, and the viva voce, and he was expecting to be selected for the position. (vii) However, the result, published on 01.07.2020, selected 127 candidates for the position of Junior Data Entry Operator under the Home Department based on their performance in the written examination, computer fundamental theory, computer practical test, and weightage marks, as per clause 11 of the advertisement. Despite securing more marks than some of the selected candidates/ the petitioner’s name was not included. Page 3 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 (viii) Upon inquiring about the reason for his non-selection, the petitioner was informed that there was a defect in his e-challan, which led to his exclusion from the selection list. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The petitioner has duly submitted the e-challan along with his application form, which clearly showed that he had deposited the required Rs. 100/- examination fee. (ii) According to the online application, the fee was paid to OSSSC, not to the Government. Despite this discrepancy, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the written test, practical test, and his certificates were verified. (iii) The petitioner argues that the mistake in the e-challan was not his fault, as he paid the fee according to the instructions in clause 8(i) of the advertisement. He was permitted to participate in all stages of the recruitment process, and thus, the Opposite Party No. 2 is estopped from canceling his candidature. (iv) The petitioner further contends that the Opposite Party lacks the jurisdiction to cancel his candidature, as he has not suppressed any material facts nor was he ineligible for the post under clauses 5 and 7 of the eligibility criteria. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 (i) Clause-8 required a fee of ₹100 under Head of Account “0051-PSC-104- UPSC/SSC Examination Fees-0047-Fees Collected for Conducting Examinations-02041-Examination Fees/” payable online or via Treasury. The petitioner erroneously deposited the fee under “0051-00-104-0047- 02213/” an incorrect account. (ii) Under Rule 10(1) of the Odisha Staff Selection Commission Rules, 1993, and Clause-8, fees deposited incorrectly rendered the application liable for rejection. (iii) Despite the error, all applicants were provisionally allowed to take the written test, but those who paid under the wrong account were disqualified at document verification. (iv) The Advertisement specified that examination admission was provisional, subject to eligibility verification. By depositing the fee incorrectly, the petitioner failed to meet eligibility criteria. (v) On 01.07.2020, a select list of 127 candidates was published, reserving 77 posts per court orders. A revised list on 07.01.2021 included 187 candidates, per Home Department letter No. 41207/CC dated 23.12.2020, though 45 ST vacancies remained unfilled due to lack of qualified candidates. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard rival contentions and perused the relevant document on record. 6. The facts are undisputed. The petitioner paid submitted his online application and paid the examination fee through an e-challan. However, the petitioner deposited the amount against incorrect Account number. He was unaware of the error that had crept into his Page 5 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 application form. Moreover, it is undisputed that the advertisement contained clauses stating that if the information provided by the candidates was wrong or misleading, the application form would be rejected, and necessary criminal action would be taken. Additionally, the clause emphasized that candidates must accurately provide their name/ father’s name/ address/ etc./ in the application form. Any discrepancy found during document verification would result in the cancellation of the candidate’s candidature. 7. A fee of ₹100 under Head of Account “0051-PSC-104-UPSC/SSC Examination Fees-0047-Fees Collected for Conducting Examinations-02041- Examination Fees/” payable online or via Treasury. The petitioner erroneously deposited the fee under “0051-00-104-0047-02213/” an incorrect account. 8. Equally undisputed is the fact that after filling out the application, the petitioner successfully participated and cleared the written examination as well as the Computer Test. 9. An identical issue was delved into in Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar &Ors.,1 wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the principle encapsulated in the maxim de minimis non curatlex: the law does not concern itself with trifles. Applying this doctrine, the Court allowed the plea of an individual whose candidature for the position of Police Constable had been rejected by the respondent authorities due to an inadvertent error in the entry of his date of birth on the application form. The Court emphasized that such minor errors or omissions, which 1[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1 Page 6 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 do not affect the substantive rights or eligibility of the candidate, cannot serve as grounds for disqualification. The relevant paragraphs are produced hereinbelow: “13. Equally undisputed is the fact that after filling out the application, the appellant cleared the written examination and the Physical Eligibility Test. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that there were 61 unfilled vacancies though it was submitted that it was meant for the Gorkha candidates. 14. We are not impressed with the argument of the State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or mis-leading information. We say on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Even the State has not chosen to resort to any criminal action, clearly implying that even they did not consider this error as having fallen foul of the following clause in the advertisement:- ‚Instructions to fill online application form are available on the website. It is recommended to all the candidates to carefully read the instructions before filling the online application form and kindly fill the appropriate response in the following tabs. In case, the information given by the candidates found wrong or misleading, the application form will get rejected and necessary criminal actions will also be taken against the candidate.” ...... 19. In this case, the appellant has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafe, got the better of the appellant. He omitted to notice the error and even failed to avail the corrective mechanism offered. In the instant case/ we cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed. In the order dated Page 7 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 22.11.2021 in C.A. No. 6983 of 2021 [Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union of India &Ors.], this Court rightly observed that though technology is a great enabler, there is at the same time, a digital divide. 10. It is evident that an inadvertent error by a candidate, to warrant forfeiture of their candidature, must be of such a nature that it either misleads the authorities or materially influences the outcome of the selection process. In the present case, where the appellant successfully cleared all stages of the recruitment process/ the State’s strict and inflexible application of procedural requirements was neither justified nor proportionate to the circumstances. 11. Further, the Supreme Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) also cited Divya v. Union of India &Ors.,2 where the Supreme Court declining relief to candidates who acquired eligibility after the date mentioned in the notification, carved out a narrow exception. The court held as following: “80. It will be noticed that UPSC has considered these omissions as trivial and as not going to the root of the eligibility, unlike in the case of the petitioners herein. In Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India [2016] SCC OnLine Del 6563, Indira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court felicitously put the issue about the examining body’s right to decide as to which errors are material and which are inessential and trivial. We do nothing more except to extract paras 6, 7 & 9 from the said judgment :- ‚6. There can be no doubt that a candidate applying for a government job, or for that matter, any job should fill in 2 2023 (13) Scale 730 Page 8 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 the application form carefully. No candidate can claim any vested right to rectification of arrears in an application. Union Public Service Commission and the State Public Service Commissions deal with lacs of to an applications, which are received pursuant advertisement. Such applications are required to be processed within a short time. A candidate, who is not short-listed and/or not allowed to participate in the selection process by reason of his own laches in making careless mistakes, cannot claim any right to be allowed to participate in the selection process. 7. It is for the body conducting the selection process to decide whether mistakes should be allowed to be rectified, if so, whether they should be rectified within any specific time and what are the mistakes which can be allowed to be rectified and other similar questions. However, in view of the mandate of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India, there should be no discrimination or arbitrariness in deciding these questions. All candidates applying for the particular post/posts should be treated equally. 9. It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/ or mis-representation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, 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.”(Emphasis supplied) Page 9 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 12. I am not persuaded by the State’s argument that the appellant’s error was so grave as to constitute false or misleading information capable of either deceiving the authorities or materially influencing the outcome of the selection process. This conclusion is drawn in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Notably, the respondent authorities did not intervene at any stage of the recruitment process and permitted the appellant to successfully clear all stages of examination. This inaction clearly suggests that the error was not deemed to be in violation of the relevant clause of the advertisement, which expressly warned against providing misleading or incorrect information. 13. In this instance, the appellant participated in and cleared all stages of the recruitment process. The error in submitting the fees to a wrong account is a minor, inadvertent, and bona fide mistake which can have no bearing on the fairness or integrity of the selection process. The State’s decision to treat such a trivial oversight as a ground for disqualification was disproportionate and unwarranted. To penalize the appellant for such a negligible error, involving merely a sum of ₹100, would amount to an unjust denial of opportunity. 14. The Counsel for the Opp. Parties has relied on Rule 10(1) of the Odisha Staff Selection Commission Rules, 1993 to argue that fees deposited incorrectly rendered the application liable for rejection. Rule 10(1) is reproduced herein to get a better understanding of the rule: “10. (1) No application for admission to any examination shall be considered unless it is accompanied by a Treasury Challan showing payment the examinationfees as specified in the advertisement : the Government Treasury, in Page 10 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 Provided that the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall no pay any such examination fee.” 15. From the aforementioned provision, it is evident that the rule is designed to ensure that applications are scrutinized for compliance with the mandatory payment of examination fees and the submission of proof thereof. It further mandates that non-compliant applications shall not be entertained. However, in the present case, not only was the application of the candidate considered, but he was also permitted to participate in various stages of the examination process, with his name duly appearing in the official documents related to the examination. Ergo, this submission of the Opp. Parties cannot be accepted. 16. Justice should not be thwarted by technicalities, particularly when such technicalities involve genuine errors that do not compromise the integrity or fairness of the selection process.The Court must draw a clear distinction between substantive violations and minor procedural irregularities. In doing so, this Court strives to strike a delicate balance between upholding procedural rigor and ensuring substantive fairness. CONCLUSION: In light of the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the Opposite Parties to treat the petitioner as having “qualified”the stages of exam in the selection process conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.05.2015 issued by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties are directed to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment. In the event that no vacancy exists at V. 17. 18. Page 11 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 present, an appointment letter shall nevertheless be issued, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of this case. However, a cost of Rs.100/- is imposed on the petitioner so he double- checks his applications in the future before submitting them. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. 19. 20. 21. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the17th Dec., 2024/ (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Page 12 of 12