JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. 1. The petitioner, who was an applicant for the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose), pursuant to online advertisement issued on 22.07.2017 for Common Recruitment Process for Recruitment of Officers (Scale-I, II & III) and Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in Regional Rural Banks (RRBs)-CRP, RRBs-VI, has filed this application challenging rejection of his candidature during verification of original documents on the ground that at the time of uploading the application through online, his date of birth was indicated as "01.07.1988" though his actual date of birth is "01.06.1988." 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) published an advertisement on 22.07.2017 for Common Recruitment Process for Recruitment of Officers (Scale-I, II & III) and Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in Regional Rural Banks (RRBs)-CRP, RRBs-VI, which was to be conducted between September and November, 2017. The eligibility criteria were prescribed, including the age and educational qualifications. In the said advertisement, age was prescribed between 18 years to 28 years, i.e., the candidate should have not been born earlier than 02.07.1989 and later than 01.07.1999 (both dates inclusive). The persons with benchmark disability, as defined under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, would be given 10 years relaxation. The educational qualification was prescribed that the candidate must be a Bachelor's Degree in any discipline from a recognized University or its equivalent with proficiency in local language as prescribed by the participating RRBs and working knowledge in computer was desirable. The petitioner, being differently disabled person and is suffering from BH-Ateral moderately severe mixed hearing loss of 48% and with his disability he tried to have a decent living and was otherwise found himself eligible for applying the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose), submitted his application through online within the prescribed time with prescribed manner on payment of requisite fees. On consideration of his qualification, he was called for online preliminary examination with Roll No.2470802787. The date of examination was fixed to 23.09.2017 and reporting time was 2.45 P.M. The venue of the examination was fixed at ION Digital IDZ Golanthara, Roland Institute of Technology, Surya Vihar, Golanthara, Berhampur, Ganjam, Odisha-761008. 2.1 Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the online preliminary examination (CWE) for recruitment of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in Regional Rural Banks. The date of examination was fixed to 23.09.2017 and reporting time was 2.45 P.M. The venue of the examination was fixed at ION Digital IDZ Golanthara, Roland Institute of Technology, Surya Vihar, Golanthara, Berhampur, Ganjam, Odisha-761008. 2.1 Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the online preliminary examination (CWE) for recruitment of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in Regional Rural Banks. The petitioner cleared up the preliminary examination with a score of 53.75% marks and thereafter, he was called for online main examination to be held at the same venue on 12.11.2017 and the reporting was fixed to 8.30 A.M. Consequentially, he appeared in the said test and having qualified in the said examination, he received a call letter on 12.03.2018 from the opposite party-bank for biometric/document verification and assessment of proficiency test in Odia language. He was directed to remain present on 22.03.2018 at 9.30 A.M. at Odisha Gramya Bank Head Office, Gandamunda, PO-Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar along with certificates and documents for verification. In compliance of the same, the petitioner appeared at the head office along with all the certificates and documents on the scheduled date. But, at the time of verification of documents, it was found that in the online application, the petitioner had furnished his date of birth as "01.07.1988", though his actual date of birth is "01.06.1988". Consequentially, opposite party no.1-bank rejected his candidature and his documents were not accepted and assessed for proficiency test in Odia language. Hence this writ application. 3. Ms. Sujata Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in all the documents filed by the petitioner, his date of birth was mentioned as "01.06.1988", but while submitting the application through online, pursuant to advertisement issued under Annexure-1, inadvertently his date of birth was entered in the application form as "01.07.1988", which was detected when he went for verification of documents. Therefore, the petitioner immediately filed an affidavit to that extent. It is contended that the mistake, which has been committed was bona fide one, which will not materially affect the selection process, so far as age of the petitioner is concerned, and it will never go to the root of the matter to deprive the petitioner from participating in the process of selection. As such, the petitioner had no intention to defraud anybody by furnishing his date of birth as "01.07.1988" in place of "01.06.1988. As such, the petitioner had no intention to defraud anybody by furnishing his date of birth as "01.07.1988" in place of "01.06.1988. But his request was not acceded to and direction was given to approach the IBPS for correction of the same and consequentially his application was rejected. It is further contended that the IBPS is only concerned about the advertisement, conduct of the examination process and provisionally allot the candidates so selected by it to the concerned participating banks and, as such, it has no role in the further selection process. Therefore, informing the IBPS about the mistake in the application form regarding date of birth cannot have any justification and, as such, after the process of selection was over and after provisional allotment of candidates to the concerned participating banks, the IBPS became functus officio. Thereby, the mistake which has been committed can only be rectified by the opposite party-bank, but instead of doing so, the bank has rejected the same. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for interference of this Court. To substantiate her contention, she has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court rendered in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 . 4. Mr. H.K. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party-bank contended that the only discrepancy with regard to date of birth though wanted to be rectified by the petitioner by swearing an affidavit before the Notary Public, the bank did not allow the petitioner for proficiency test in Odia language. Rather, he was advised to approach the IBPS for the same and the IBPS is only the deciding agency and concerned about the advertisement, conduct of the examination process and provisionally allot the candidates so selected by it to the concerned participating banks. It is further contended that the IBPS became functus officio after provisionally allotted the candidates to the concerned banks. Therefore, the discrepancy in question about the date of birth was so technical and ought to have been corrected by the bank instead of advising the petitioner to approach the IBPS. It is also further contended that as per the advertisement in Annexure-1, under the heading procedure for applying online, it has been emphasized that candidates are advised to carefully fill the online application themselves as no changes in any of the data filled in the online application will be possible/entertained. It is also further contended that as per the advertisement in Annexure-1, under the heading procedure for applying online, it has been emphasized that candidates are advised to carefully fill the online application themselves as no changes in any of the data filled in the online application will be possible/entertained. It has also been indicated that "please note that all the particulars mentioned in the online application including name of the candidate, category, date of birth .............. will be considered as final and no change/modifications will be allowed after submission of the online application form". Further, the IBPS will not be responsible for any consequences arising out of furnishing of incorrect and incomplete details in the application or omission to provide the required details in the application form. Therefore, if the petitioner has submitted his date of birth by mistake indicating as "01.07.1988" in place of "01.06.1988" and consequentially rejected his application on verification of documents, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority so as to warrant interference by this Court at this stage. 5. This Court heard Ms. Sujata Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.K. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, and perused the record. Though IBPS has been made as proforma opposite party no.3, this Court did not inclined to issue notice to the said opposite party, pursuant to order dated 20.08.2018, as it was an outsourcing agency which conducted the process of selection. Since pleadings having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. On the basis of the pleadings available, Ms. Sujata Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner confined her argument to the extent that the date of birth indicated in the online application form as "01.07.1988" should have been corrected as "01.06.1988" and for this unintentional bona fide mistake, the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected. Mr. 6. On the basis of the pleadings available, Ms. Sujata Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner confined her argument to the extent that the date of birth indicated in the online application form as "01.07.1988" should have been corrected as "01.06.1988" and for this unintentional bona fide mistake, the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected. Mr. H.K. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 though raised several questions, as learned counsel for the petitioner confined her argument to the extent mentioned above, he contended that admittedly there was wrong mentioning of date of birth in the application form and the same could not have been rectified as the opposite party no.3 conducted the selection process and as per the terms of the advertisement, the said mistake cannot be rectified. So far as other pleadings are concerned, both the counsels abandoned their argument and confined to the aforesaid effect only stating that whether wrong mentioning of date of birth in online application form can be rectified and opportunity can be given to the petitioner to participate in the process of selection. Since both the counsels have admitted that there was wrong mentioning of date of birth in the online application form indicating "01.07.1988" in place of "01.06.1988", it is to be considered whether such mentioning of date of birth can be corrected in the online application form or not, if so, then whether the application of the petitioner can be taken into consideration for selection of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) pursuant to the advertisement issued in Annexure-1. 7. Before going into the merits of the case, relevant provisions of the advertisement in Annexure-1 are extracted below:- "B. Eligibility Criteria:- xxx xxx xxx II. Age (As on 01.07.2017) xxx xxx xxx For Office Assistant (Multipurpose) Between 18 years and 28 years i.e. candidates should have not been born earlier than 02.07.1989 and later than 01.07.1999 (both dates inclusive). The maximum age limit specified above is applicable to General candidates only. For other categories, the following relaxation would apply" Sl.No. Category Age relaxation xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 3. Persons with Benchmark Disability as defined under "The Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016" 10 years Clause-III : Reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities Under section 34 of "The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016" persons with benchmark disabilities are eligible for Reservation. Persons with Benchmark Disability as defined under "The Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016" 10 years Clause-III : Reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities Under section 34 of "The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016" persons with benchmark disabilities are eligible for Reservation. M. How to apply: A candidate can apply for the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) and can also apply for the post of Officer. However, a candidate can apply for only one post in Officer's cadre i.e. for Officer-Scale-I or Scale-II or Scale-III. Candidates have to apply separately and pay fees/intimation charges separately for each post. Candidates can apply online only from 24.07.2017 to 14.08.2017 and no other mode of application will be accepted. Pre requisites for Applying Online: Before applying online, candidates should (i) scan their photograph and signature ensuring that both the photograph (4cm x 3.5cm) and signature adhere to the required specifications as given in Annexure-III to this Advertisement. (ii) Signature in CAPITAL LETTERS will NOT be accepted. (iii) Keep the necessary details/documents ready to make Online Payment of the requisite application fee/intimation charges. (iv) have a valid personal ID, which should be kept active till the declaration of results of this round of CRP, IBPS may send call letters for the Examination etc. through the registered e-mail ID. Under no circumstances, a candidate should share with/mention e-mail ID to/of any other person. In case a candidate does not have a valid personal e-mail ID, he/she should create his/her new e-mail ID before applying on-line and must maintain that e-mail account. Application Fees/Intimation Charges Payable from 24.07.2017 to 14.08.2017 (Online payment) both dates inclusive, shall be as follows: Officer (Scale I, II & III) - Rs.100/- For SC/ST/PWD/EXSM candidates - Rs.600/- for all others Office Assistant (Multipurpose) - Rs.100/- For SC/ST/PWD/EXSM candidates - Rs.600/- for all others Procedure for applying online:- (1) Candidates are first required to go to the IBPS's authorized website www.ibps.im and click on the home page to open the line "CRP for RRBs" and then click on the appropriate option "CLICK HERE TO APPLY ONLINE FOR CRP-RRBs-OFFICERS (Scale-I, II and III) or "CLICK HERE TO APPLY ONLINE FOR CRP-RRBs-OFFICE ASSISTANT (Multipurpose) to open up the online application form. (2) Candidates will have to click on "CLICK HERE FOR NEW REGISTRATION" to register their application by entering their basic information in the online application form. (2) Candidates will have to click on "CLICK HERE FOR NEW REGISTRATION" to register their application by entering their basic information in the online application form. After that a provisional registration number and password will be generated by the system and displayed on the screen. Candidate should note down the provisional registration number and password. An Email and SMS indicating the provisional registration number and password will also be sent. They can reopen the saved data using provisional registration number and password and edit the particulars, if needed. (3) Candidates are required to upload their photograph and signature as per the specifications given in the guidelines for scanning and upload of photograph and signature (Annexure-III). (4) Candidates are advised to carefully fill in the online application themselves as no change in any of the data filled in the online application will be possible/entertained. Prior to submission of the online application candidates are advised to use the "SAVE AND NEXT" facility to verify the details in the online application form and modify the same if required. No change is permitted after clicking on FINAL SUBMIT Button. Visually impared candidates are responsible for carefully verifying/getting the details filled in in the online application form properly verified and ensuring that the same are correct prior to submission as no change is possible after submission. (5) For the posts of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) and Officers Scale-I, the candidate should indicate in the online application the state to which he/she opts for provisional allotment on selection. The option once exercised will be irrevocable. Note : xxx xxx xxx Please note that all the particulars mentioned in the online application including name of the candidate, category, date of birth, post applied for, address, mobile number, E-mail ID, centre of examination, local language, preference of RRBs etc. will be considered as final and no change/modifications will be allowed after submission of the online application form". Candidates are hence requested to fill in the online applications form with the utmost care as no correspondence regarding change of details will be entertained. IBPS will not be responsible for any consequences arising out of furnishing of incorrect and incomplete details in the application or omission to provide the required details in the application form. N. General Instructions: xxx xxx xxx (5) A candidate's admission to the examination/short listing for main examination/short-listing for interview/subsequent process is strictly provisional. IBPS will not be responsible for any consequences arising out of furnishing of incorrect and incomplete details in the application or omission to provide the required details in the application form. N. General Instructions: xxx xxx xxx (5) A candidate's admission to the examination/short listing for main examination/short-listing for interview/subsequent process is strictly provisional. The mere fact that the call letter(s)/provisional allotment has been issued to the candidates does not imply that his/her candidature has been finally cleared by IBPS/Regional Rural Banks. IBPS/RRBs would be free to reject any application, at any stage of the process, cancel the candidature of the candidate in case it is defected at any stage that a candidate does not fulfil the eligibility norms and/or that he/she has furnished any incorrect/false information/certificate/documents or has suppressed any material facts. If candidature of any candidate is rejected for any reason according to the terms and conditions of this advertisement, no further representation in this regard will be entertained. If any of these shortcomings is/are detected after appointment in a Regional Rural Banks, his/her services are liable to be summarily terminated. (6) Decision of Nodal RRBs/Regional Rural Banks/IBPS in all matters regarding eligibility of the candidates, the stages at which such scrutiny of eligibility is to be undertaken, qualifications and other eligibility norms, the documents to be produced for the purpose of the conduct of examination, interview, verification etc. and any other matter relating to CRP RRBs-VI will be final and binding on the candidate. No correspondence or personal enquiries shall be entertained by IBPS/Regional Rural Banks in this regard. IBPS/Nodal Bank/RRBs take no responsibility to receive/collect any certificate/remittance/document sent separately." 8. In compliance of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, the petitioner submitted his online application form, but while submitting online application he had wrongly submitted his date of birth as "01.07.1988" in place of "01.06.1988". Under clause-II of the advertisement, age has been prescribed and for the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose), it has been prescribed that the candidates must be between 18 years and 28 years, i.e. candidates should have not been born earlier than 02.07.1989 and later than 01.17.1999 (both dates inclusive). As the petitioner is a physically challenged person, he would get relaxation of 10 years as per clause-3 of the advertisement. As the petitioner is a physically challenged person, he would get relaxation of 10 years as per clause-3 of the advertisement. Therefore, the eligibility of the petitioner will relate back to 02.07.1979, meaning thereby, a candidate having physically disability born in between 02.07.1979 and 01.07.1999, would be eligible to make an application for the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose). Admittedly, the petitioner's date of birth is "01.06.1988", but wrongly it has been mentioned in the online application form as "01.07.1988". The eligibility of the petitioner will not materially affect the process of selection and it will not go into the root of the matter, as he comes within the purview of relaxation clause as prescribed in the advertisement itself. But merely because of some typographical mistake committed at the time of filling of online application, i.e, "01.07.1988" in place of "01.06.1988", which being unintentional, the authority should have taken a pragmatic view permitting the petitioner to participate in the process of selection. 9. In West Bengal SEB V. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd, (2001) 2 SCC 451 , the apex Court held that a mistake may be unilateral or mutual but it is always unintentional. If it is intentional it ceases to be a mistake. 10. In D.D.A. v. Joginder S. Monga, (2004) AIR SC 3291, the apex Court held that a mistake is not a fraud. It may be discovered and in a given case it must be pleaded. Such plea must lead to a fundamental error. It can be a subject-matter of acquiescence. 11. In Dev Metal Powders (P) Ltd. V. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 439 , the apex Court held that 'mistake' means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting it; it is an error, a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. It is further held that 'mistake' is an ordinary word but in taxation laws, it has a special significance. It is not an arithmetical error which after a judicious probe into the record from which it is supposed to emanate is discerned. The work 'mistake' is inherently indefinite in scope, as to what may be a mistake for one may not be one for another. The 'mistake' to be rectified under Section 22 of the Act must be apparent from the record. 12. The work 'mistake' is inherently indefinite in scope, as to what may be a mistake for one may not be one for another. The 'mistake' to be rectified under Section 22 of the Act must be apparent from the record. 12. In Avtar Singh mentioned supra, while considering the fact that employees are required to furnish correct information relating to their character and antecedents in the verification form, before or after their induction in the service, the apex Court in paragraphs-29 and 30 held as follows:- "29. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is found to be of good moral character on due verification of antecedents, merely by suppression of involvement in trivial offence which was not pending on date of filing attestation form, whether he may be deprived of employment? There may be case of involving moral turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt. There may be situation when person has been convicted of an offence before filing verification form or case is pending and information regarding it has been suppressed, whether employer should wait till outcome of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case when action has been initiated there is already conclusion of criminal case resulting in conviction /acquittal as the case may be. The situation may arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where disclosure has been made truthfully of required information, then also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of verification of information, certain information comes to notice then also employer is required to take a decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. If on verification of antecedents a person is found fit at the same time authority has to consider effect of suppression of a fact that he was tried for trivial offence which does not render him unfit, what importance to be attached to such non-disclosure. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds of cases? 30. The employer is given "discretion" to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds of cases? 30. The employer is given "discretion" to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filing verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression of an incumbent for are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher official/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may be itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However, same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed, to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence, etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of doubt of dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment, incumbent may be appointed or continued in service." 13. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment, incumbent may be appointed or continued in service." 13. The only question which has been raised by the opposite party-bank with regard to the Note of Clause-(M) and Sub-clause (5) of Clause-(N) of the advertisement that IBPS/RRBs would be free to reject any application, at any stage of the process, cancel the candidature of the candidate in case it is defected at any stage that a candidate does not fulfil the eligibility norms and/or that he/she has furnished any incorrect/ false information/certificate/ documents or has suppressed any material facts. But from the pleadings available on record, it appears that it is not the case of the petitioner that he does not fulfil the eligibility criteria and further it is not a fact that the petitioner has furnished any incorrect/false information/ certificates or documents and has suppressed any material fact. But fact remains, there was a typographical error, while filling up of the date of birth in the online application form, with regard to the date of birth which has been indicated as "01.07.1988" in place of "01.06.1988". Therefore, the mistake which is an unintentional one, cannot disentitle the petitioner to be considered for selection, particularly when the mistake is bona fide and un-intentional and the same will not materially affect the selection process and does not go into the root of the matter disentitling the petitioner to be selected in the post applied for. 14. In view of the law discussed above, if the mistake has been caused unintentionally and it does not affect materially the selection process and does not go into the root of the matter, the authority can permit the petitioner to rectify the same in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, particularly when the petitioner is a physically challenged person and had crossed different stages of selection process and reached the final stage where his proficiency test in Odia language is to be held. 15. This Court while entertaining this application, vide order dated 26.07.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.1130 of 2017 directed as follows: "The interim application is filed in Court today. Office to register the same. 15. This Court while entertaining this application, vide order dated 26.07.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.1130 of 2017 directed as follows: "The interim application is filed in Court today. Office to register the same. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the opposite party no.2 to allow the petitioner to appear in the test for verification of his original documents and for assessment of his proficiency in odia language for recruitment in the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose). Mrs. Sujata Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has cleared up his written examination. In the event, the opposite party no.2 does not allow the petitioner to verify his original documents, the future of the petitioner will be bleak. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directs the opposite party no.2 to verify the original documents of the petitioner and allow him to appear in the test for proficiency in odia. The result of the same shall not be published without leave of this Court. I.A. is disposed of." 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the law discussed above, since by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court the petitioner has been allowed to appear in the proficiency test in Odia language, it is directed that the result of the said examination should be published and if the petitioner is otherwise found eligible, the consequential benefit of the advertisement so as to get the benefit of appointment as an Office Assistant (Multipurpose) be given to him in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of passing of this judgment. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.