In the case of Poonam Pal D/o Laxman Singh Pal vs. Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank (Writ Petition No.9338/2021), the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, recently ordered a Government Bank to reverse its decision to cancel the candidature of a successful candidate for the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) due to a typographical error in date of birth and to subsequently issue appointment orders in her favour.
Brief Description Of The Case: The Petitioner’s case involved her successful clearance of a written exam in which she applied for and was appointed to the position of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) at the Respondent Bank. She made a typographical error, however, and listed her date of birth as 02.11.1991, rather than 04.11.1991, when submitting her application for the exam in question. Her application was eventually denied by the Bank at the stage of document verification on the grounds that she provided an erroneous date of birth, even though the Bank had first given her an offer letter. The Bank did not take the petitioner’s request for permission to make the required adjustments to her form into consideration.
The petitioner said that she was still qualified for the position despite giving the incorrect birthdate and that doing so had not given her any advantage. She claimed that it was an accidental typographical error on her side, and that she had been fairly chosen, and that this should have been excused.
Judgement: The Court held that even after an application has been completed and a candidate has been given permission to participate in the selection process, the candidacy may be revoked if there is a major inconsistency discovered in the application form. However, if a candidate has taken part in the selection process and has advanced through all stages successfully, their candidacy should not be withdrawn without first carefully examining the seriousness of the error. However, it was pointed out that this could not be done for minor mistakes or omissions.
The Court observed that, in light of the relevant facts, there was no evidence of the Petitioner intentionally making a false statement or profiting from her error. With the aforementioned comments, the Court granted the petition, ordering the Respondent Bank to assess the petitioner’s candidacy and then to issue an appointment order in her favour.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY PRAKIRTI JENA