JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. The action of cancellation of the appointments of the petitioners as Constables (GD) in the CRPF is the subject matter of dispute in this petition filed by the 6 petitioners who have joined together. Initially, the petition was filed challenging an order dated 24.07.2021 by which even before a final decision was taken by the competent authority pending verification, the offer of appointment of the petitioners were cancelled. Subsequently, on issuance of the final cancellation order dated 30.01.2023, the writ petition was amended and it is both the orders which are the subject matters of challenge. 2. Before going to the issue which requires a determination, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are narrated in brief. 3. The 6 petitioners are all indigenous residents of the State of Nagaland in various districts. Pursuant to a recruitment process for amongst others, the post of Constables (GD) in the CRPF, the petitioners had offered their candidatures. As per the advertisement, the selection process was based on 4 stages, namely, Computer Based Examination, Physical Examination Test (PET), Physical Standard Test (PST) and Medical Examination. On being successful in all the aspects, the petitioners were offered appointments on 15.02.2021 whereafter they had reported and were assigned duties. The petitioners were also given Force numbers. However, vide the first impugned communication dated 24.07.2021 issued by the office of the DIG, the offer of appointment was cancelled on the ground that there were discrepancies in the district of domicile and the district of permanent residence. Though the letter indicated that further verification was being done, the offer of appointment was already cancelled vide order dated 24.07.2021 and since the representations filed by the petitioners were rejected, the writ petition was instituted. Subsequently, the order dated 30.01.2023 was passed of final cancellation and accordingly, as indicated above, the amended writ petition has been filed. 4. I have heard Shri T.B. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners whereas the respondents are represented by Shri Yangerwari, learned CGC. 5. Shri Jamir, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the discrepancy, if any, is of trivial nature which does not, in any manner gave any advantage to the petitioners in the selection process. 4. I have heard Shri T.B. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners whereas the respondents are represented by Shri Yangerwari, learned CGC. 5. Shri Jamir, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the discrepancy, if any, is of trivial nature which does not, in any manner gave any advantage to the petitioners in the selection process. It is submitted that in such a recruitment which involves a number of candidates, the applications are required to be filled up online in which some discrepancies of this nature may occur. He has submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioners are all permanent residents of the State of Nagaland for which the recruitment was also involved. The learned Senior Counsel, by drawing the attention of the relevant documents has also submitted that special emphasis were made for Border Guarding districts and against S. No. 38 to 42 pertaining to the State of Nagaland, Phek District was also notified as one of the Border Guarding Districts. He submits that the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are indeed from Phek district and by not disclosing the said aspect, the said two petitioners have actually been in a disadvantageous permission. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to those States earmarked having militancy affected districts and so far as the State of Nagaland is concerned, all the districts are stated to be militancy affected districts. The learned Senior Counsel has also referred to Note III in the advertisement whereby change of the domicile/permanent resident district can be changed only when those are issued by another State. It is accordingly submitted that even a change in the domicile and permanent resident districts is not barred if an incumbent is from the same State. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 11 relating to the mode of selection and Clause 15 regarding the jurisdiction aspect in case of any dispute. 6. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 27.09.2023, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has emphasized that the discrepancy/error involved is not a material error which would go to the root of the selection process. 6. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 27.09.2023, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has emphasized that the discrepancy/error involved is not a material error which would go to the root of the selection process. He submits that such error was liable to be overlooked or at least a chance was to be given to the petitioners to rectify the same which has not been given. The learned Senior Counsel has also been critical of the impugned order which have been passed without giving a proper opportunity to the petitioners of hearing. 7. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the following cases: (i) Order dated 27.07.2020 of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Division Bench) in WP (C) No. 4761/2020, Rajesh Sominath Nilakha vs. The Union of India (ii) Order dated 05.02.2021 of this Court in WP (C) No. 2544/2020, Abu Kasem vs. The Union of India and Others (iii) Order dated 27.04.2022 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP (C) No. 3537/2021, Veeramallu Aruna Venkateswara Rao vs. The Union of India and Others (iv) Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 2 8. A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rajesh Sominath Nilakha (supra) was also dealing with the same recruitment process in which almost analogous situation had arisen regarding domicile of the incumbent. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court had however quashed the order of disqualifying the incumbent in that case. A similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Veeramallu Aruna Venkateswara Rao (supra) pertaining to the same recruitment process. 9. In the case of Abu Kasem (supra), this Court has held that trivial error in filling up of the application for recruitment which did not give any undue advantage to the incumbent should not be a ground for rejection of the candidature. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has informed that the aforesaid decision is on the same recruitment process. 10. In the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra), the following observations have made which would be relevant: “15. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has informed that the aforesaid decision is on the same recruitment process. 10. In the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra), the following observations have made which would be relevant: “15. Recently this Bench in Divya vs. Union of India and Others, 2023 INSC 900 : 2023 (13) Scale 730, while declining relief to candidates who acquired eligibility after the date mentioned in the notification carved out a narrow exception. There, the judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) SCC Online Delhi 6563, a case very similar to the facts of the present case, was noted. In Ajai Kumar Mishra (supra), Indira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Para 9 stated as under: 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.” 16. The exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the reason that law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle is recognized in the legal maxim - De minimis non curat lex.” 11. With regard to the proposition that decisions of a different High Courts can also be relied upon and has a persuasive value, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of Pradip J. Mehta vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, (2008) 14 SCC 283 . 12. Per contra, Shri Yangerwati, learned CGC has submitted that the issue involved is not as projected on behalf of the petitioners but the real issue is whether correct facts were given in the application or not. The learned CGC, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 27.09.2023, more particularly the averments made in paragraph 2 has submitted that the applications were also to be supported by an undertaking to give true, complete and correct information. The learned CGC, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 27.09.2023, more particularly the averments made in paragraph 2 has submitted that the applications were also to be supported by an undertaking to give true, complete and correct information. It is further stipulated in the undertaking that in case any information was found to be suppressed or false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected before examination, the candidature/appointment would be cancelled. It is submitted that in view of such clear undertaking and the aspect of discrepancy being not disputed per se, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The learned CGC has also drawn the attention of this Court to the cause-title of the present petition containing the address of the respective petitioners along with pleadings made in paragraph 3 of the same and has submitted that even in this writ petition, there are discrepancies in disclosing their respective addresses. He has also raised the issue of not approaching this Writ Court which is a Court of Equity with clean hands. The learned CGC has however fairly submitted that there is no dispute that all the petitioners are indigenous residents of the State of Nagaland. 13. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 14. The facts noted above would boil down to the issue of a disclosure made in the application for recruitment submitted by the petitioners. The rejection of the appointment vide the two orders dated 24.07.2021 and 30.01.2023 are on the ground that there are discrepancies in the addresses pertaining to the domicile and permanent residents. The aforesaid discrepancy is not disputed. 15. What is therefore required to be examined is whether the impugned orders are sustainable on the aforesaid ground. Taking a very technical approach, the impugned orders may not be found fault with as there was also an undertaking in the application made by the candidates regarding their candidatures/appointments liable to be cancelled in case of incorrect/false information. However, what is required to be seen is whether there has been any malicious intention on the part of the petitioners to gain undue advantage by making a disclosure which is not inconformity with the certificates given. There is no dispute in the Bar that all the petitioners are permanent residents and indigenous people of the State of Nagaland. However, what is required to be seen is whether there has been any malicious intention on the part of the petitioners to gain undue advantage by making a disclosure which is not inconformity with the certificates given. There is no dispute in the Bar that all the petitioners are permanent residents and indigenous people of the State of Nagaland. This Court has also noticed that in the advertisement, so far as the State of Nagaland is concerned, all the districts are stated to be militancy affected district where additional vacancies were to be filled up. This Court also been apprised, as recorded above, that the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 who belong to the Phek district which is one of the Border Guarding district had not disclosed that aspect which could have been given them additional benefits. Under those conditions, it would be difficult to come to the conclusion that the discrepancy mentioned above, would have a material bearing in the decision to reject the eligibility of the petitioners for appointment. Though the stand of the respondents is that a false statement is made, there is a thin line of distinction between a false statement and an incorrect statement and to examine that aspect, one has to see as to whether the incumbent had derived any advantage from such statement. In the instant case, this Court has noticed that no advantage of any nature has been derived by such incorrect disclosure of facts, more so, when it is not in dispute that all the petitioners are indigenous residence of the State of Nagaland. 16. So far as the first impugned order dated 24.07.2021 is concerned, this Court is also of the view that when the entire matter was said to be under verification, the cancellation could not have been made and at best such appointment could have been kept in abeyance which was not done. In any case, this Court is of the view that the action of cancellation which has been communicated vide order dated 30.01.2023 is on absolute trivial ground which would not have any material bearing on the aspect of eligibility of the petitioners to be appointed as Constables (GD) in the CRPF. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) has elaborately explained the aspect of trivial omissions or errors. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) has elaborately explained the aspect of trivial omissions or errors. This Court has also been apprised that the decision of this Court in the case of Abu Kasem (supra) and those of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court are on the same recruitment process. In fact, the cases before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court were on the same issue of domicile which have been interfered by the Hon’ble Courts and the cancellation of appointments have been set-aside. 18. Considering all the aforesaid aspects and discussions made above, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders dated 24.07.2021 and 30.01.2023 by which the appointments of the petitioners have been cancelled are unsustainable in law and accordingly set aside. The petitioners are accordingly to be inducted back in their services as Constables (GD) forthwith. 19. It is further directed that the petitioners be given notional benefits including seniority from the date of their initial appointments but such benefits would not be for any monetary consideration. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. 21. Cost made easy.