2019 (8) TMI 1859 - SC - Indian Laws

Appointment in the post of Civil Judge - Seeking 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 - Respondent contended before the High Court that she did not violate any of the conditions stipulated by the Commission - relief granted on humanitarian ground - HELD THAT - The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission as held in M. Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission 2006 (6) TMI 538 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground - The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent in TAHERAKHATOON (D) BY LRS. VERSUS SALAMBIN MOHAMMAD 1999 (2) TMI 679 - SUPREME COURT and CHANDRA SINGH VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN 2003 (7) TMI 692 - SUPREME COURT in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case. In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature of the Instructions. It cannot be said that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by respondent that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of examination instructions leading to disqualification.
2. High Court's discretion in granting relief despite violation of instructions.
3. Applicability of legal principles in cases of violation of mandatory instructions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Violation of examination instructions leading to disqualification
The case involved a respondent, an advocate enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, who participated in the selection process for Civil Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. The respondent's Law Paper-1 written examination was invalidated by the Commission due to the use of a pencil, which was a violation of the instructions provided by the Commission. The High Court, after examining the answer sheet, confirmed the violation and found that the respondent had underlined portions of the answer sheet with a pencil, contrary to the instructions prohibiting the use of certain writing materials. The respondent argued that the marking was inadvertent and pleaded for leniency, stating that she did not gain any advantage from it. The High Court accepted this argument and granted relief to the respondent, directing the Commission to declare her successful in the main examination.

Issue 2: High Court's discretion in granting relief despite violation of instructions
The High Court exercised its discretion to grant relief to the respondent based on sympathetic considerations and humanitarian grounds, despite acknowledging the violation of the instructions. The appellant contended that the instructions were mandatory and any violation should lead to disqualification, as relaxing the rules in this case could set a precedent for future candidates seeking similar relief. The High Court's decision was challenged in the appeal, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to examination instructions to maintain fairness and integrity in the selection process.

Issue 3: Applicability of legal principles in cases of violation of mandatory instructions
The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, set aside the High Court's judgment, highlighting that the instructions issued by the Commission were mandatory and had to be strictly complied with. The Court emphasized the significance of upholding the terms and conditions of the instructions, stating that the High Court's decision to grant relief to the respondent, despite the violation, would set a problematic precedent. The Court cited legal principles emphasizing the importance of strict construction of rules in public appointments to ensure fairness and impartiality. Ultimately, the Court held that granting relief in this case would amount to laying down bad law and affirmed the mandatory nature of the instructions, leading to the allowance of the appeal and setting aside the High Court's judgment.