ORDER

In response to Notification of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission dated 03.02.2023, for direct recruitment for the posts included in Combined Engineering Subordinate Services Examination, the petitioner had made an on-line application through the website portal of TNPSC on 01.03.2023. She was thereafter issued with Hall Ticket on 18.05.2023 with registration No.“0101003266” and the petitioner had also undertaken the written examination. However, when the list of successful candidates were published by the respondents on 20.09.2023 in their website, the petitioner's name was not included and her candidature was rejected on the ground that there was a violation of the TNPSC instructions to applicants.

2. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents submitted that in the OMR answer sheet, the petitioner is required to sign in two places whereas the signature was made by her only in one place. As per Paragraph 17-E (i) (g) of the Commissions instructions to applicants, the application would be in violation of the Commission's instructions when the OMR answer sheet is not signed by the candidate at all the required places, the rejection of her candidature cannot be found fault with. 3. It is no doubt true that the instructions given to the candidates in a Public recruitment process of this nature, the candidates are required to scrupulously follow all the instructions given therein and any infraction of the instructions may result in disqualification and to this extent, the rejection of her candidature made by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission cannot be strictly found fault with. Nevertheless, when such minor infraction are done by the candidates owing to inadvertence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court on several occasions have come to the rescue of such candidates, who have committed these minor mistakes by taking into account of losing a valuable opportunity of applying for a public employment and held that such mistakes should not deprive of his or her career.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [Charles K.Sakaria and others Vs. Dr.C.Mathew and others] reported in 1980 2 SCC 752, which was subsequently followed in [Dolly Chanda Vs The Chairman, JEE and others] reported in 2005 9 SCC 799, had held that every infraction of the rule need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. Following these two decisions, in the case of [M.Magehwari Vs. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, W.P.No.4397 of 2020 dated 22.09.2021], I had permitted a candidate to participate in the selection process, where she had inadvertently mentioned her gender as “Male” instead of “Female”.

The relevant portions of the order reads as follows :-

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and others reported in 2005 (9) SCC 779, had held that every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.

5. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of K.Ganapathy Vs. Member Secretary, TNPSC, Chennai passed in W.P.No.9289 of 2020, dated 05.02.2001, had also held that a minor error inadvertently committed by a candidate, should not deprive his valuable right of gaining employment in Public Service. The same view was reiterated in the case of M.Abiramadevi V. The Secretary, TNPSC, Chennai and another passed in W.P.No.4700 of 2020 dated

05.02.2021.

6. In the present case, the petitioner is otherwise qualified to be appointed in the selection process but for the minor mistake committed by her in the application. By applying the ratio held in the above cited decisions, it could be held that such a minor error of mentioning “Male” instead of “Female” as petitioner's gender, should not deprive her of the appointment in the Public Service. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner herein has already been provisionally appointed as Junior Assistant in the School Education Department