In Brief
A candidate from rural Bihar applied for police constable recruitment and cleared written and physical tests, but was rejected for a date-of-birth discrepancy: the online form showed 08.12.1997 while his educational certificates showed 18.12.1997. The High Court upheld rejection citing strict advertisement clauses. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal, holding that trivial inadvertent errors—especially those conferring no benefit and not affecting selection—cannot justify rejection after a candidate has successfully cleared all stages. The Court emphasised that law does not concern itself with trifles and justice must not be sacrificed on technicalities. The State was directed to issue an appointment letter.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.