Mandatory examination instructions bind candidates; non-compliance warrants rejection without sympathy-based relaxation.

The respondent applied for direct recruitment to the post of Combined Engineering Subordinate Services pursuant to the TNPSC notification dated 03.02.2023 and appeared for the examination.

The TNPSC instructions required candidates to sign the OMR answer sheet at two specified places. The respondent signed at only one place, resulting in rejection of her answer sheet and candidature under Paragraph 17-E(i)(g) of the common instructions.

The respondent challenged the rejection in W.P. No. 32516 of 2023. Although the writ court found that she had violated the TNPSC instructions, it allowed the petition on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds, relying on Dolly Chanda v. Chairman, JEE, and directed TNPSC to evaluate the answer sheet and obtain her signature if necessary.

TNPSC preferred the present writ appeal against that order.

1. Whether the writ court could, on grounds of sympathy or humanitarian consideration, direct evaluation of an OMR answer sheet despite the candidate’s admitted violation of mandatory examination instructions.

2. Whether the principle permitting condonation of minor or technical mistakes, recognised in Dolly Chanda v. Chairman, JEE, could be applied to invalidate or overlook a candidate’s non-compliance with TNPSC examination instructions.

3. Whether such a direction would undermine the uniformity and fairness of the public recruitment process and prejudice other candidates who complied with the prescribed instructions.

The Court held that examination instructions issued by a Public Service Commission have binding legal force and must be strictly complied with by candidates.

It relied principally on State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalatha, 2019 INSC 975, which held that courts cannot grant relief contrary to mandatory examination instructions merely on humanitarian or sympathetic grounds.

The Court also applied the principle in Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 721, that “hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law” and that relaxation of selection rules may cause arbitrariness and undermine equality in public appointments.

Dolly Chanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 799, concerning condonable minor mistakes, was held incapable of universal application to competitive examinations conducted by Public Service Commissions.

The Court further relied on Rann Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., 2017 INSC 1209, for the principle that sympathy or compassion cannot justify interference with the examination process or re-evaluation of answer sheets.

The respondent admittedly failed to sign the OMR answer sheet at both places prescribed by the TNPSC instructions, and the writ court itself recorded that violation.

Since the instructions were mandatory and binding, the Court held that the writ court had no authority to direct evaluation of the answer sheet merely because the omission appeared minor or the resulting consequence was harsh.

Applying G. Hemalatha, the Court reasoned that granting an exception would be contrary to the instructions and would create an impermissible precedent for similarly situated candidates who had also failed to comply.

The Court distinguished the limited principle in Dolly Chanda, observing that condonation of minor mistakes cannot be extended generally to public recruitment examinations, where uniform adherence to instructions is essential to preserve fairness, equality, and certainty in the selection process.

Sympathy-based relief would also prejudice candidates who complied with the prescribed requirements and could unsettle the recruitment process.

It held that the respondent’s failure to sign the OMR sheet at both required places justified rejection of her answer sheet and candidature, and that no relief could be granted on sympathetic or humanitarian grounds.

No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.