Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Tuesday, November 5, 2024

Judicial Service - HC Can't Modify/Relax Instructions Issued By Public Service Commission: SC

Posted in: Employment laws
Tue, Sep 3, 19, 19:02, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 1 - hits: 9751
Tamil Nadu v/s G Hemalathaa strong message has been sent to all the High Courts by reiterating that in judicial service, the High Court can't modify/relax instructions issued by the Public Service Commission..

In a noteworthy and commendable judgment titled The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors Vs G Hemalathaa & Anr in Civil Appeal No. 6669 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14093 of 2019) delivered by the Supreme Court on August 28, 2019, a strict, stern and strong message has been sent to all the High Courts by reiterating that in judicial service, the High Court can't modify/relax instructions issued by the Public Service Commission. The Apex Court has clearly, categorically and convincingly observed that instructions issued by the Public Service Commissions to the candidates are mandatory and to be strictly complied with and the High Courts cannot relax/modify these instructions. This notable judgment serves to send an unmistakable message that all candidates must strictly comply with the instructions issued by the Public Service Commissions and if they don't comply then even High Court too can't grant them relief.

To start with, this latest, landmark and laudable judgment authored by Justice L Nageswara Rao for himself and Justice Hemant Gupta sets the ball rolling in para 1 by first and foremost pointing out in para 1 about G Hemalathaa that, The Respondent is an Advocate enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission') issued a Notification dated 09.04.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 320 vacancies to the posts of Civil Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. The Respondent was successful in the preliminary examination conducted on 09.06.2018.

The written test was conducted on 11th and 12th August, 2018. Results of the written test were announced on 19.09.2018 and the name of the Respondent did not appear in the list of successful candidates. Interviews were conducted from 27.09.2018 to 05.10.2018 and the final results of successful candidates were published on 05.12.2018. The Respondent came to know that another candidate belonging to the same community to which she belongs (Most Backward Class) was selected in spite of her performance not being satisfactory. The Respondent made a representation to the Commission to furnish her marks in the written examination. On 07.01.2019, the Commission conveyed to the Respondent that her Law Paper I written examination was invalidated in view of violation of the instructions to Applicants (hereinafter referred to as 'the Instructions') issued by the Commission.

Needless to say, what we then see unfolding in para 2 is this: The Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court for a direction to declare her result and appoint her as a Civil Judge, provided she has secured more marks than the last selected candidate in the Most Backward Class category. The High Court directed the Commission to announce the result of the Respondent in Law Paper-I of the main written examination. If she was found qualified, the Commission was directed to conduct the interview of the Respondent as a special case. The Commission was further directed to complete the exercise and announce the final result of the Respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment of the High Court, this appeal is filed.

Moving on, it is then pointed out in para 3 that, The Respondent contended before the High Court that she did not violate any of the conditions stipulated by the Commission. She complained that the Commission wrongfully invalidated her Law Paper-I. The High Court summoned the answer sheets and found that the Respondent had underlined the answer sheet with pencil at several places in Law Paper-I. The High Court was also of the opinion that such marking was in clear violation of Instruction 22 (1)(II) of the Instructions issued by the Commission which prohibits candidates from using a pencil for any purpose. Instruction 22 (1)(II) provides that:

Penalty for violation of Commission's instruction in the descriptive type examination.

The answer books of the applicants will be invalidated/marks deducted/debarred for violations of any one or more of the instructions, besides initiating criminal action wherever necessary.

I Invalidation.

II. Usage of whitener, sketch pens, pencil, colour pencils, multi-colour pens, Crayons or any other writing materials, for any purpose.

On the one hand, para 4 brings out that, When the Respondent was confronted by the High Court by showing the answer sheet, she submitted that it may have been done inadvertently and due to anxiety. The Respondent pleaded for leniency and prayed that a direction may be given to the Commission to declare her as having been successful in the main examination. The High Court accepted the submission of the Respondent that the underlining of some portions of the answer sheet in pencil was done unwittingly and inadvertently and that she did not gain any advantage from such marking. Being of the view that the Respondent cannot be disqualified for a mistake committed inadvertently, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.

On the contrary, para 5 then states that, 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.

Going forward, para 6 then brings out that, Ms. V. Mohana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent vehemently argued that we should not exercise our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. According to her, there is no substantial question of law in the S.L.P. warranting our interference. She submitted that an error was committed by the Respondent which was rightly condoned by the High Court. She made a fervent appeal to us that the career of a meritorious backward class candidate should not be nipped at the bud.

It cannot be lost on us that it is then envisaged in para 7 that, 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 (M. Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, (2006) 3 Mad. LJ 376).

Bluntly put, it is then made clear in para 8 that, 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.

While rapping the High Court on its knuckles for wrongly granting relief to the Respondent, the Bench of Apex Court did not mince any words to say clearly and categorically in para 9 that, 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.

Be it noted, para 10 then also brings out that, 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.

Furthermore, it is then pointed out in para 11 that, Roberts, CJ. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey 556 U.S. 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.

Most significantly, it is then held in para 12 that, 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.

Finally, it is then held in the last para of this noteworthy judgment that, In view of the aforementioned, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Very rightly said. There can be no denying or disputing it.

On a concluding note, it must be said in all fairness that this noteworthy and praiseworthy judgment by the Supreme Court sends out a very clear, categorical and unmistakable message that rules laid down by the Public Service Commission cannot be given a go by under any circumstances even by the High Court and they have to be strictly complied with always. No doubt, the Apex Court has also very rightly laid down that strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions issued by the Public Service Commission to the candidates are mandatory and are of paramount importance. All the High Courts while ruling in such sensitive matters must always keep this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment always in mind. There can be no two opinions on it.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Delhi High Court in Federation of Okhla Industrial Association (Regd) v Lt Governor of Delhi quashed its much-touted March 2017 order revising the minimum wages for all classes of workmen in scheduled employment, opining clearly and categorically that the same was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India
The unemployment is emerging as the biggest social problem. It takes away the massive share of the referendum, if any political party comes to this agenda.
Ambi Ram v State of Uttarakhand has taken a lenient view in a corruption case involving meager bribe amount on the ground that long pendency amounts to a special reason for imposing lesser penalty.
Rutman Law provides you with a team of experienced Employment Lawyers In Mississauga at your service. If you are experiencing any unfair dismissal, contact us for fair and square assistance. We will build a convincing legal case for you to help you get rightful justice in the matter. We make sure our clients get full recovery.
HP Disapproves Of Employees Managing Posting In And Around Urban Areas And Asks State To Break The Cartel
KK Agarwal vs Sanjiv Nandan Sahai Central Government for not appointing law member in Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [CERC] which is certainly most baffling! Why is law member not being appointed?
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vs Ajai Kumar Srivastava that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee.
Sachin Kumar vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) recruitment to public services must command public confidence.
It is a matter of utmost serious concern that more and more states are now making laws for reserving jobs for locals.
Rajasthan vs Love Kush Meena held many times earlier also that acquittal based on a benefit of doubt in respect of a heinous or serious nature of crime cannot make the candidate eligible for public employment.
Madhya Pradesh ruled by BJP this happened. Now again in BJP ruled Haryana we see this happening that 75% of jobs in private sectors
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
against the growing criminalization of politics, the Supreme Court on August 27, 2014 ruled very categorically that as the Constitution reposed great trust in the Prime Minister
A Hameed Hajee v. Keral trade is not more important than health has dismissed a petition seeking withdrawal of the weekend lockdowns imposed in the State amid the pandemic.
G Krishnegowda vs Karnataka even if an individual is not a public servant, but if he is discharging public duty by virtue of his office, he is answerable to the State and public and he comes within the ambit of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Seema Shakya v/s The Board of Secondary Education over the steep decline in the standard of education in primary schools in Government Sector has observed that salaries, allowances, and perquisites attached to the post of a primary teacher in the Government Sector should be attractive.
Sunil Hirasingh Rathod Vs Maharashtra the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) that mere recovery of tainted money from the accused in the absence of proof of demand is not sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Harvinder Kaur Vishakha Singh vs Tarvinder Singh K Singh in First Appeal No. 1476 of 2007 has directed an employer to compensate the kin of a truck driver, observing that the stress and strain caused during his employment had ultimately led to his demise.
There are many advanced methods of recruitment like automated communication applications, company review platforms, social media, virtual conference via video conferencing, AI for smooth hiring process, and application tracking systems, etc.
Rattan Lal Bharadwaj vs HP the provisions of ‘equal pay for equal work’ envisaged under Article 39(d) of the Constitution is a constitutionally enforceable right.
Maharashtra v Ajay Ratansingh Parmar that mere recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Union of India vs M Duraisamy that of compulsory retirement observed that punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority can’t be substituted merely on grounds that the employee had voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount.
Jaising Nivrutti Sonawane Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation that: The approach in this country of believing that when one works for government no action can ever be taken no matter how persistently one
Abhilash Kumar R vs Kerala Books and Publication Society that the right to pension is a constitutional right and that pensions cannot be paid to retired employees merely at the whims and fancies of the employers.
Pralhad Bhaurao Thale vs Union of India has refused to grant relief to a Head Constable who was found sleeping while on duty. The Court thus dismissed his plea challenging the penalty of compulsory retirement that was imposed upon him.
Murad Ali Sajan & UT of J&K that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee; such position can be filled only by a candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.
Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs State of UP that the criminal proceedings can be quashed when the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered does not disclose any acts of the accused or their participation in the commission of crime.
Javaid Ahmad Akhoon Vs J&K that the Government can place necessary restrictions for smooth functioning of a particular trade, however, such restrictions must not be unreasonable particularly when the same are aimed to regulate the trade of unemployed skilled youth of a troubled area.
Virendra K Singh Chauhan v. U.P. that: Once the petitioner has retired from service on 31.12.2001, there was no authority vested in the corporation for continuing the departmental proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner.
Abhay Kumar Kispotta v/s Chhattisgarh that providing 100% female reservation is unconstitutional. quashed the provisions of a law framed by the Chhattisgarh government which specified that only female candidates are eligible for direct recruitment to the posts of demonstrators, professors and principals in government nursing colleges.
Madan Lal vs RajasthanIn such cases, no mercy can be shown to such persons who are indulged in grave misconduct and they are required to be dealt with iron hands in order to culminate the ills prevailing in the government departments today.
Hari Singh vs Rajasthan that when rules prescribe certain code of conduct for government employees and bars them from leading an immoral life, the same cannot be violated on the ground that Indian mythology permits the same.
Chanchal Singh vs UOI that the refusal to undergo promotion cadre test disentitles defence personnel from the periodic financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP).
Shanti Devi vs Jharkhand that pension and gratuity benefits for employees cannot be withheld while criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Top