1. Candidate's examination paper invalidated for using pencil in violation of mandatory instructions — Writ petition for declaration of results and appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 972 ; 2019 Supreme(SC) 973
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
G. Hemalathaa & anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6669 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14093 of 2019)
Decided on : 28-08-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Purbitaa Mitra, A.Jaswanthi, K.V.Vijayakumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):V.Mohana, S. Gowthaman, Thomas Franklin Caesar, M.Venmani, Gautam Narayan, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Purbitaa Mitra, A.Jaswanthi, K.V.Vijayakumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):V.Mohana, S. Gowthaman, Thomas Franklin Caesar, M.Venmani, Gautam Narayan, Advocates
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Instructions issued by Commission are mandatory, having force of law and they have to be strictly complied with.
(2) High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution cannot modify/relax Instructions issued by Commission.
(1) Instructions issued by Commission are mandatory, having force of law and they have to be strictly complied with.
(2) High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution cannot modify/relax Instructions issued by Commission.
Subject
Examination and Selection Process - Violation of Examination Instructions
Act Referred
Headnote
Service Law – Appointment – Posts of Civil Judges in Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service – Instructions issued by Commission are mandatory, having force of law and they have to be strictly complied with – Strict adherence to terms and conditions of Instructions is of paramount importance – High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution cannot modify/relax Instructions issued by Commission – High Court after summoning and perusing answer sheet of Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of Instructions – However, High Court granted relief to Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground – In spite of finding that there was no adherence to Instructions, High Court granted relief, ignoring mandatory nature of Instructions – Judgment of High Court set aside. [Article 226 of Constitution of India] (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 13)
Facts of the Case:
Notification dated 09.04.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 320 vacancies to posts of Civil Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. High Court after summoning and perusing answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground.
Findings of Court:
We cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. Other submission made on behalf of appellant that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Mandatory nature of examination instructions versus plea for leniency based on inadvertent error and lack of unfair advantage. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Examination instructions have the force of law and must be strictly complied with; sympathetic considerations cannot override mandatory rules in public selection processes. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Mandatory instructions for public appointments must be strictly construed and cannot be relaxed by courts on humanitarian grounds to avoid arbitrariness and inequality. (Para 7 , 10 )
5. High Court judgment set aside and appeal allowed. (Para 13 )
6. Can a court relax mandatory examination instructions on humanitarian grounds?
No. Instructions issued by a selection commission are mandatory, have the force of law, and must be strictly complied with. Courts cannot modify or relax these instructions under Article 226, as doing so on sympathetic grounds would lead to arbitrariness and violate the principle of equality. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
7. What is the legal implication of the aphorism hard cases make bad law in public appointments?
It means that yielding to the desire to correct an extreme or sympathetic case by deviating from established legal principles or mandatory rules creates bad law. Such moderation in selection processes can create distrust, lead to arbitrariness, and violate the principle of equality. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
8. Can Article 142 of the Constitution be used to grant relief to a candidate who violated mandatory examination instructions without creating a precedent?
The court declined this request, indicating that granting relief to a candidate who violated mandatory instructions would still constitute laying down bad law, regardless of whether it was intended to be a precedent. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. The Respondent is an Advocate enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) issued a Notification dated 09.04.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 320 vacancies to the posts of Civil Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. The Respondent was successful in the preliminary examination conducted on 09.06.2018. The written test was conducted on 11th and 12th August, 2018. Results of the written test were announced on 19.09.2018 and the name of the Respondent did not appear in the list of successful candidates. Interviews were conducted from 27.09.2018 to 05.10.2018 and the final results of successful candidates were published on 05.12.2018. The Respondent came to know that another candidate belonging to the same community to which she belongs (Most Backward Class) was selected in spite of her performance not being satisfactory. The Respondent made a representation to the Commission to furnish her marks in the written examination. On 07.01.2019, the Commission conveyed to the Respondent that her Law Paper 1 written examination was invalidated in view of violation of the Instructions to Applicants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Instructions’) issued by the Commission.
2. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court for a direction to declare her result and appoint her as a Civil Judge, provided she has secured more marks than the last selected candidate in the Most Backward Class category. The High Court directed the Commission to announce the results of the Respondent in Law Paper-1 of the main written examination. If she was found qualified, the Commission was directed to conduct the interview of the Respondent as a special case. The Commission was further directed to complete the exercise and announce the final result of the Respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment of the High Court, this appeal is filed.
3. The Respondent contended before the High Court that she did not violate any of the conditions stipulated by the Commission. She complained that the Commission wrongfully invalidated her Law Paper-1. The High Court summoned the answer sheets and found that the Respondent had underlined the answer sheet with pencil at several places in Law Paper-1. The High Court was also of the opinion that such marking was in clear violation of Instruction 22 (1)(II) of the Instructions issued by the Commission which prohibits candidates from using a pencil for any purpose. Instruction 22 (1) (II) provides that:
“Penalty for violation of Commission’s instruction in the descriptive type examination.
The answer books of the applicants will be invalidated/marks deducted/debarred for violations of any one or more of the instructions, besides initiating criminal action wherever necessary.
(1) Invalidation
I. ...
II. Usage of whitener, sketch pens, pencil, colour pencils, multi-colour pens, Crayons or any other writing materials, for any purpose.”
4. When the Respondent was confronted by the High Court by showing the answer sheet, she submitted that it may have been done inadvertently and due to anxiety. The Respondent pleaded for leniency and prayed that a direction may be given to the Commission to declare her as having been successful in the main examination. The High Court accepted the submission of the Respondent that the underlining of some portions of the answer sheet in pencil was done unwittingly and inadvertently and that she did not gain any advantage from such marking. Being of the view that the Respondent cannot be disqualified for a mistake committed inadvertently, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.
5. Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Instructions given to candidates taking examinations for selection to the post of Civil Judges clearly bars the candidates
