Tnpsc exam case full order BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.02.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W. P.(MD) No.2597 of 2022and W.M.P.(MD) No.2303 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W. P.(MD) No.2597 of 2022and
W.M.P.(MD) No.2303 of 2022
M.Kathiravan Ilamurugan … Petitioner
vs.
1.The Secretary
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road, V.O.C.Nagar
Park Town, Chennai-600 003
2.The Controller of Examinations
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road, V.O.C.Nagar
Park Town, Chennai-600 003
3.The Nodal Officer / Web Information Leader
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road, V.O.C.Nagar
Park Town, Chennai-600 003 … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents to permit / allow the petitioner to upload the certificates related to his caste, education, enrollment certificate through OTR account in the official website of the respondents and also to pay the fees for the purpose of main written examination through his OTR account on the basis of his representation dated
05.02.2022 within the specific period fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ponniah.M.
For Respondents : Mr.J.Anand Kumar, Standing Counsel
O R D E R
The writ of mandamus is filed to direct the respondents to
permit / allow the petitioner to upload the certificates relating to his caste, education, enrollment through OTR account in the official website of the respondents and also to pay the fees for the purpose of main written examination through his OTR account on the basis of his representation dated 05.02.2022 within the period stipulated by this Court.
2. The petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer, is fully qualified for
appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor and applied for the said post pursuant to the notification issued by the first respondent on
25.08.2021, inviting applications from the eligible candidates only through online mode upto 24.09.2021 for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II in the Prosecution Department included in the Tamil Nadu General Service. Even the notification provides the terms and conditions and also a warning. The petitioner submitted his application through online. The applications are generated through webside and securitization are done accordingly.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that
no doubt, the petitioner has committed certain errors in filling up the application, however, such errors are unintentional and would not affect the qualification and eligibility of the petitioner materially. It is contended that the petitioner is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor and certain errors in the application form made inadvertently should not affect the prospects of the petitioner to participate in the written examinations.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the details filled up by the petitioner in the online form. A copy of the online form is enclosed in the typed set of papers. It is contended that the petitioner is a bright student and passed the preliminary exam in the Union Public Service Commission and he has filled the form with utmost care and on account of pandemic situation, he could not keenly watch the errors and therefore, an opportunity is to be provided to the petitioner to participate in the written examination.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
made a submission that admittedly, the petitioner has committed an error in providing the correct details in the application form. It is not as if the petitioner has done it inadvertently. When specific queries are raised and answers or informations are sought for, then the applicant is expected to provide correct details. In this regard, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the declaration signed by the applicant. The declaration categorically states that in the event of providing wrong or incorrect information, then the applications will be rejected and further, they would be subjected themselves for any action to be taken by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. This being the scope of declaration, the case of the petitioner was dealt with in accordance with law and furthermore, the applications are system generated and therefore, in the event of giving any concession to the petitioner, many other applicants, who have filled the form erroneously will also claim advantage from and out of such mistakes and in such of an event, it will result in opening a pandora box and derail the system of the selection process resulting in anomalous situation.
6. The candidates were provided with the necessary instructions
even at the time of filling up of the application. The instructions provided along with the application form categorically enumerate the manner in which the informations or details are to be provided in the application. When clear instructions are given and with reference to the instructions, the forms were filled and even in the form, the applicants have declared that the informations provided are correct, thereafter, they cannot come forward and claim that inadvertently, they have committed mistakes and the same may be condoned and they may be permitted to participate in the written examinations.
7. In the present case, in column the details sought for are “have
you passed the All India Bar Examination conducted by Bar Council of India?” The petitioner has stated “Yes”. However, the fact remains that the petitioner during the relevant point of time has not passed the All India Bar Examination conducted by the Bar Council of India. Regarding the medium of instruction for providing reservation for Tamil medium students as per the Government Policy, the petitioner has filled up that he studied in the Tamil medium and more specifically stated that PSTM certificate was issued on 14.09.2021, but, the petitioner do not possess PSTM Certificate and therefore, he is not eligible to avail the reservation under the Tamil medium quota. When these vital informations are inadvertently or incorrectly stated, the applications will be automatically rejected by the online generated system of the respondents.
8. The contention of the petitioner is that he has inadvertently
made such mistakes and the same may be condoned. If such mistakes are condoned, it will result in a disaster consequence as large number of students, who have submitted their applications with such mistakes, will also claim the benefit of writing examination and the very purpose and object of the instructions given to the students and the declaration form will became meaningless and it will be defeated. Now, a question arises, what is the point in providing such instructions as well as declaration, which is signed by the applicants. Therefore, every person, who are filling the forms, must ensure that the details provided are correct and informations furnished are in accordance with the certificates or documents, which they possess.
9. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu and others vs. G.Hemalathaa and another, dated 28.08.2019 in Civil Appeal No.6669 of 2019, wherein the Apex Court has made the following observations:
“5. Mr.R.Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Instructions given to candidates taking examinations for selection to the post of Civil Judges clearly bars the candidates from using a pencil in any manner. The Instructions given to the candidates are mandatory and cannot be relaxed. Mr. Venkatramani contended that the initial stand taken by the Respondent that she did not use the pencil disentitles her from the relief sought for. No lenient view can be taken in cases of violation of the mandatory Instructions as the order in favour of the Respondent will be treated as a precedent. If the Respondent is given the relief sought for the other candidates who have been disqualified will also claim the same relief.
……
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. 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.
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 and Chandra Singh Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan and another 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.”
10. The above Judgment of the Apex Court was followed by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 11.03.2020 in W.A.No.4318 of 2019 [P.Prabu vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission].
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is
not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a
submission that the petitioner completed his law degree in the year 2008 and the Bar Council Examination was introduced in the year 2009-2010. However, if that being the fact, the petitioner ought not to have stated in the application form that he has passed the examination. Therefore, the information provided by the petitioner is incorrect and the material facts were well within the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot plead innocence or otherwise.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.02.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
krk
W. P.(MD) No.2597 of 2022and
W.M.P.(MD) No.2303 of 2022
14.02.2022
of 10