Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 09.04.2018 inviting applications for 320 vacancies of Civil Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. The respondent, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, participated in the selection process. She cleared the preliminary examination held on 09.06.2018 and appeared for the written test on 11th and 12th August 2018. However, her name did not appear in the list of successful candidates announced on 19.09.2018. Upon her request, the Commission informed her on 07.01.2019 that her Law Paper-1 had been invalidated due to violation of the Instructions to Applicants, specifically Instruction 22(1)(II) which prohibits the use of pencil for any purpose. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking declaration of her result and appointment. The High Court summoned the answer sheets and found that the respondent had underlined portions with pencil, which was a clear violation of the instructions. Despite this finding, the High Court accepted her plea that the marking was inadvertent and that she gained no advantage, and directed the Commission to declare her result and conduct her interview as a special case. The State of Tamil Nadu appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the mandatory nature of the instructions, which have the force of law and require strict compliance. It held that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226, cannot modify or relax such instructions. The Court rejected the respondent's arguments that no substantial question of law arose and that the appeal should be dismissed on humanitarian grounds. Applying the principle that hard cases make bad law, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that any order in favor of a candidate who violated mandatory instructions would set a bad precedent and undermine the fairness of public appointments.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Judicial Recruitment - Examination Instructions - Mandatory Compliance - The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued instructions prohibiting use of pencil in answer sheets. The respondent candidate used pencil to underline portions, violating Instruction 22(1)(II). The High Court, despite finding violation, granted relief on sympathetic grounds. The Supreme Court held that instructions are mandatory and have force of law; strict compliance is paramount. High Court cannot modify or relax such instructions under Article 226. (Paras 7-9) B) Constitutional Law - Article 136 - Discretion - Interference with High Court Order - The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion in ignoring mandatory instructions cannot be affirmed, especially when it is in teeth of binding rules. The appeal was entertained as the High Court's order laid down bad law. (Paras 8-9) C) Legal Maxims - Hard Cases Make Bad Law - The Court applied the principle that hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law, citing Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and Caperton v. A.T. Massey. Granting relief to a candidate who violated mandatory instructions would create distrust in selection process and violate equality. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could grant relief to a candidate who violated mandatory examination instructions by using a pencil in the answer sheet, on sympathetic or humanitarian grounds.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the mandatory instructions cannot be relaxed by the High Court under Article 226, and granting relief would lay down bad law.
Law Points
- Examination instructions are mandatory and have force of law
- High Court cannot modify or relax them under Article 226
- Hard cases cannot make bad law
- Strict adherence to rules in public appointments is essential
