2006 (6) TMI 538 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of rejection of applications due to non-signing in the specified columns.
2. Ambiguity in the application form leading to non-signing.
3. Discrimination in allowing rectification of defects for some candidates.
4. The mandatory nature of instructions in the application form.
5. Opportunity for candidates to rectify mistakes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rejection of Applications Due to Non-Signing in Specified Columns:
The court upheld the rejection of applications by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) due to non-signing in the specified columns. The court emphasized that the signature connotes the authenticity of the person who certifies as well as the accuracy and correctness of the particulars provided and furnished by him. The non-signing by the applicants at page 2 of the application form made the particulars furnished by them unauthenticated and, therefore, invalid. The court ruled that the TNPSC was justified in rejecting the applications on this ground.

2. Ambiguity in the Application Form Leading to Non-Signing:
The petitioners argued that the formatting of the application form was ambiguous, leading to their failure to sign in the declaration column. The court, however, found that the language used and the columns given in the application form were clear and there was no ambiguity regarding the places where the applicant had to subscribe his/her signature. The court noted that the application form and the instructions were provided both in English and Tamil, and a specimen filled-in form was also supplied to all candidates, which clearly indicated where signatures were required.

3. Discrimination in Allowing Rectification of Defects for Some Candidates:
The petitioners contended that the TNPSC permitted some candidates to rectify certain defects but failed to treat them similarly. The court examined the TNPSC's response, which clarified that 725 candidates were reconsidered for admission because they had failed to enclose a specific format meant exclusively for the post of Assistant Surgeon, but their applications were otherwise in order. However, no candidates who failed to sign the application form were allowed to write the examinations except those who obtained interim orders from the court. The court found no merit in the argument of discrimination.

4. The Mandatory Nature of Instructions in the Application Form:
The court held that the instructions in the application form and the Information Brochure issued by the TNPSC have the force of law and must be strictly complied with. The court referred to various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, which affirmed that the terms and conditions of a prospectus or brochure are binding on all parties concerned. The court emphasized that the failure to comply with these mandatory instructions would result in the summary rejection of the applications.

5. Opportunity for Candidates to Rectify Mistakes:
The petitioners argued that the TNPSC should have given them an opportunity to rectify the mistake of not signing the application form. The court rejected this argument, stating that there was no specific rule or provision in the instructions or the Information Brochure that allowed for rectification of such defects. The court noted that allowing rectification would disrupt the selection schedule and the process of examinations. The court also highlighted that the applicants were expected to thoroughly read and understand the instructions before submitting their applications.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the TNPSC's decision to reject the applications due to non-signing in the specified columns. The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the instructions provided in the application form and Information Brochure, and ruled that no leniency or indulgence could be shown to those who failed to comply with these mandatory requirements.