Instructions issued by a recruiting agency are mandatory and cannot be relaxed on sympathetic grounds.

In brief

The question

1. Whether personal difficulties or extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic justify a relaxation of mandatory timelines set by a recruiting agency for document verification

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the Respondent's failure to comply with the notified schedule was fatal to her candidacy.

It also directed

The Court set aside the Writ Court’s order dated 11.10.2023 and allowed the appeal filed by the TNPSC. Consequently, the Respondent was not permitted to participate in the oral test. No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The Respondent applied for the post of Assistant Tourist Officer Grade – II (2018-2019) following a recruitment notification by the Appellants

p. 2

After qualifying the written examination held on 29.09.2019, she was provisionally admitted for certificate verification

p. 2

The Appellants issued a press release on 22.10.2020 requiring candidates to upload scanned documents between 26.10.2020 and 05.11.2020

p. 3

The Respondent failed to upload the documents, citing travel to her native place and technical difficulties during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic

p. 3

A Single Judge of the Writ Court allowed her petition (W.P. No. 17853 of 2020), directing the Commission to permit document uploading on humanitarian grounds

p. 3

The Appellants challenged this order via the present intra-court appeal.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether personal difficulties or extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic justify a relaxation of mandatory timelines set by a recruiting agency for document verification

p. 7 / para. 7

ii.2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can exercise discretionary power to modify or relax mandatory instructions issued by a Public Service Commission

p. 6 / para. 5

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle that instructions issued by a Public Service Commission are mandatory, carry the force of law, and must be strictly complied with

p. 5, 6

It relied on the Division Bench precedent in The Secretary, TNPSC v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government (W.A. No. 567 of 2021), which held that mandatory instructions cannot be ignored even in cases where candidates suffered from COVID-19

p. 4, 5

Furthermore, it followed the Supreme Court ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalathaa (2020) 19 SCC 430, which established that the High Court cannot modify or relax Commission instructions under Article 226, as such misplaced sympathy would result in "bad law"

p. 6

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that since 144 other provisionally selected candidates successfully uploaded their documents during the same COVID-19 period, the Respondent's failure due to personal reasons could not be excused without derailing the entire selection process

p. 7

The bench observed that any individual relaxation creates a "Pandora's box" of similar claims from other unsuccessful candidates

pp. 3-4

The Court emphasized that strict adherence to recruitment terms is of paramount importance to maintain the integrity of the process

p. 6

It determined that the Writ Court erred by granting relief on "sympathetic consideration" and "humanitarian grounds," as such discretion is legally unsustainable when it contradicts binding mandatory instructions

p. 5, 7