WA/833/2024 of TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs C. PRIYADARSHINI on 21 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Under assail is the writ order dated 07.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.32516 of 2023. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is the appellant. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) invalidating her answer sheet.

2. In response to the recruitment notification dated 03.02.2023 for direct recruitment to the post of Combined Engineering Subordinate Services, the respondent submitted her online application through the web portal of TNPSC on 01.03.2023. She had written the examination. However, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she had violated the instructions given by the TNPSC. As per the instruction, in the OMR answer sheet the respondent was required to sign at two places, whereas the signature was made by her only in one place. As per Paragraphs 17-E(i)(g) of the common instructions, the applicant had violated the instructions issued by the Commission. Since the OMR answer sheet was not signed by the candidate at the required places, her answer sheet was rejected.

3. The writ court, though made a finding that the respondent violated the instruction issued by the TNPSC, taking a ground of sympathy and relying on the judgment in the case of Dolly Chanda Vs The Chairman, JEE and Others1 , allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to evaluate the answer sheet and isssued further direction to obtain the signature from the respondent, if required. 1(2005) 9 SCC 799

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the instructions given to the candidates have the force of law. Violation of instructions would result in rejection of answer sheet or candidature, as the case may be. In the present case, even the writ court recorded the fact that the respondent violated the instructions by the TNPSC. While so, allowing the writ petition on sympathy grounds would result in opening a pandora's box, where, numerous candidates who have violated the instructions may also approach the Court for valuation of their answer sheets or consider their candidature in the process of selection.

5. In the case of Dolly Chanda, it is a common law principle which is relied on and the Apex Court held that certain minor mistakes which are all condonable may be condoned by the Courts. But, this cannot be universally applied to all cases, where competitive examinations are conducted by the Public Service Commissions. Therefore, applying the principle laid down in Dolly Chanda in the matter of selection process through Public Service Commissions would result in bad precedent and further several candidates committed mistakes may also approach the Court resulting in unsettling the process of selection.

6. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Others -vs- G.Hemalatha (2019) INSC 975 settled the principles and the facts therein are similar to that of the facts of the present case. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

8. 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 v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635 and Chandra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2003) 6 SCC 545 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.

9. 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.

10. In her persuasive appeal, Ms. Mohana sought to persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the Respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 721 , Venkataramiah, J., held that:

“13. exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules.

11. Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey (556) US 868 (2009) held that : “Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle. That cost has been demonstrated so often that it is captured in a legal aphorism: “Hard cases make bad law.”

12. 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 Ms. Mohana 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.

7. Following the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court also relied on the judgment in the case of B.Ajith Kumar -vs- Registrar General and Others in W.P.No.30309 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023. The legal position is settled that the instructions and rules applicable for examination conducted by the Public Service Commissions will have the force of law and binding on the candidates participating in the selection process. Violation of instructions would result in rejection of candidature or answer sheet, as the case may be. Any misplaced sympathy in the matter of selection process would result in infringement of the rights of other candidates who have followed the instructions and eligible for selection. That apart, many such candidates who have not complied with the instructions may also file litigations, which would unsettle the process of selection.

8. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rann Vijay Singh -vs- State of U.P and Others2 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “ 31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not 2 2017 INSC 1209

deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse – exclude the suspect or offending question.”

9. For all the above reasons, the writ order impugned dated 07.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.32516 of 2023 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. KST WA No. 833 of 2024 AND CMP NO. 5773 OF 2024 21-09-2026